Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PAISLEY CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords]

Considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Arthur Greenwood.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

11.6 a.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
It may be for the convenience of the House if I endeavour to put this formidable document, setting out the Lords Amendments, in its proper perspective. If any hon. Member has endeavoured to count the number of Lords Amendments, he will have found that there are 310. Of these, 221 are purely drafting, and I would undertake that if we had had a further week or two, the Parliamentary draftsmen could probably have produced another 221; it is always possible to improve on drafting, because it is a process

that never ends. There are 34 Amendments proposed by the Government to remedy defects, or otherwise to improve the Bill, which are also in the nature of drafting. Therefore, of the 310 Amendments, 255 are either drafting, or are in the nature of drafting Amendments. That leaves us with 55 Amendments of substance. These are all Amendments which have been moved by Members of the Opposition in the Lords and accepted by the Government, or moved by the Government to meet points raised by the Opposition in the Commons or Lords, and also points raised by Members on this side of the House. There are seven Amendments which I propose to ask the House to reject. Two of these are purely consequential, and one is a proposal which, I think, will commend itself to the House as being an improvement on the Lords Amendments.
That leaves us with four points of principle. I thought it right to put it to the House, that in spite of this formidable list, there are really only four points of principle upon which we have to make up our minds, out of these 310 Amendments. It is, of course, open to the House to agree or disagree with them. Incidentally, I was interested and surprised to find that the Opposition are themselves disagreeing with the Lords in a number of respects because they want to go rather further. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to the four points of disagreement. To those who have been Members of the Standing Committee, or who took an interest in the Report stage, they will be old friends, and some of us may be glad to come back to them once more—I hope for the last time. The first is the question of dead ripe land, on which we had long discussions. The Lords seek to define dead ripe land in much wider terms than I am able to agree to, and we shall no doubt have a discussion on that.
The next is the question of the application of the Bill to minerals. There was no dispute in the Lords as to the applicability of minerals to the Bill; there was no suggestion that minerals should be taken right out. The real issue is how minerals, assuming that they are included, should be dealt with, and in my view the Lords have dealt with them rather more generously than they should be. The next is the question of charity land. This is a matter about which most of us have some sympathy—


certainly with certain types of charities. During the passage of the Bill through the Lords, considerable improvements were made by the Government, and the definition of charity land to be excluded from the operations of the Bill was substantially widened. Nevertheless, the Lords take the view that it ought to be still further widened, and that is an issue which this House will have to determine. Finally, there is our old friend the question of arbitration in respect of development charges. That again is a matter upon which there has been a good deal of discussion, and it will tax everyone's ingenuity to find anything fresh to say on the subject. The Lords take the view that there ought to be arbitration, but I still think there should not, and this again is a matter upon which there will have to be a debate and a decision.
I have said that there are some 55 Amendments which have been initiated by the Opposition in the Lords, or have been put down by the Government to meet the views put forward by Members of the Lords or Commons. If I mention one or two, the House will see that they are of a substantial and important character. We have, I believe, improved our method in dealing with designated land so as to remove the major alleged hardships. I know it does not satisfy hon. Members opposite entirely, but at any rate they will give us credit for having gone a long way towards endeavouring to meet this difficulty. If we have not satisfied hon. Members opposite, we did at any rate satisfy the noble Lords. We have restored Clause 34 agreements, about which we had a lot of talk. I was very much impressed with what was said on the subject, and they are now back in the Bill. We have dealt with the principles of compensation on revocation and compulsory purchase, and have included consequential losses in the compensation.
The Lords have given this Bill a very careful and close scrutiny. Hon. Members may say that they have done a job which we ought to have done. I would remind hon. Members that the Lords took 35 hours to scrutinise this Bill on Committee and Report, while it may surprise them to know that we spent 82 hours on Committee and Report. I do not propose to draw any inference from that, but I think the inference is obvious. I do not sup-

pose that the House will wish to debate each of these Amendments separately. As I say, the large majority are drafting, but a number of them do stand together. I hope that this short and, I trust, non-controversial explanation, may be of some help to the House in considering this formidable document.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The Minister has accurately described the list of Amendments which is before us a formidable document, and the fact that 310 Amendments were thought necessary after the Bill had left this House speaks for itself. The right hon. Gentleman compared the times taken in the other place and here in scrutinising this Bill, and seemed to think that the lesson to be drawn from that comparison was the obvious one which should leap to everyone's mind. There are certain things which could be said about that if we were discussing that point. I noticed myself in following the proceedings in another place, that the Ministerial speeches there were much shorter than they were here. There is something to be said in favour of the work we did here because, after getting the Bill in an extremely shapeless form it was roughed out before it got to their Lordships. Therefore, I do not think that any moral can be drawn from these time comparisons, except that their Lordships have carried out, as the Minister has said, an admirable task of revision. There is no doubt that the Bill emerges from their Lordships' scrutiny very much better than it was when it went to them.
The Minister, however, must feel some uneasiness about its final form because he has said that it would be possible to make another 221 Amendments to it. That is not a great advertisement for its perfection, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's diagnosis of the Bill as it is now before us. The important point is that out of this great mass of Amendments, the points of controversy which remain, although important, are relatively few as compared with the mass of Amendments which have been made to the Bill. Had we been going through the Amendments seriatim I should have liked to take the opportunity, at appropriate moments, of drawing attention to improvements which have been made here and there, and expressing our sincere appreciation to


the Minister and his advisers for the consideration they gave to arguments that were advanced in favour of Amendments which were not made here, but were made later in another place. I hope that that general acknowledgment, both of the work of the other place and the Minister's consideration, will be taken in lieu of the acknowledgments seriatim which I would make if we were considering these Amendments at length.
The points which remain for discussion are indicated on the Order Paper, and I myself would have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to any method of putting the Amendments that commends itself to you, so as to lessen the strain on the voices of those who have to put the Amendments to the House while relying, as we can, with perfect confidence, on the Chair to safeguard the position of those Amendments about which notice has been given. With these words, I concur with the right hon. Gentleman in moving that we should now consider the Lords' Amendments.

Mr. Charles Williams: I would like to congratulate the Minister on having made a definite and not too long statement as to why certain Amendments should not be accepted. I have never heard any Minister put forward such a clear reason. He said that he had no doubt whatever that there were another 221 drafting Amendments which it would be possible to make, which means that there are at least 221 flaws which will remain in this Bill when it becomes an Act.

Mr. Silkin: I am sorry if I let my sense of humour get the better of me on that point. What I said was meant to be humorous, and not serious.

Mr. Williams: I accept the Minister's apology, but he has treated as a humorous and not a serious matter something which affects a vast number of people. Whether his sense of humour was exaggerated or not, the right hon. Gentleman did admit that there was a vast number of drafting Amendments that might be made. This makes clear to the ordinary public outside, especially those in the West Country, the disadvantages of passing legislation about which there will be a great number of disputes. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for telling the country so

clearly that his Bill has been badly drafted from beginning to end, and that we have not had enough time for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker: I think I should announce to the House, in view of what the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) have said, that I propose to call Amendments which are drafting, or of that nature, in groups. I will endeavour to put them so that if any Member wishes to call attention to a point, he will have the opportunity of doing so. Perhaps I should also say now that a great number of these Amendments affect Privilege, and that I think it would be a waste of time if I said each time, in the appropriate case, that the necessary entry would be made in the Journals. I therefore give notice that if any Amendment affects Privilege an entry will be made in the Journals.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Clause 4.—(Local planning authorities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 35, at end, insert:
(3) Where an enquiry has been held under the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection the order shall be laid before Parliament and if either house, within a period of 40 days after the order is so laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any such period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Medland: I should like to express appreciation, on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues who worked in the Committee upstairs, and on the Recommittal stage, at the fact that the Government have decided that where joint planning boards are formed by regulations those regulations must now be laid on the Table of the House so that they can be prayed against if necessary. This point was resisted with some considerable force upstairs, and


again on Recommittal, but in another place better counsel prevailed, and I should like to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend for accepting the arguments which have been adduced.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland), in paying that tribute to the Minister and pointing out the work done by himself and his colleagues, did not also acknowledge the fact that in pressing for this Amendment there was a coalition with Members on this side who, I think, pressed it even more strongly.

Mr. Medland: I am sorry; I am very pleased to acknowledge it.

Mr. Silkin: I am very glad to be able to satisfy everybody except, possibly, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but I would point out that this Amendment was offered on the Committee stage and rejected by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake (Mr. Medland). He wanted an affirmative Resolution; I offered him a negative Resolution, and that is what he has got.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to infer that I might not be satisfied. I can disillusion him; I am satisfied with this Amendment. I would like, at the same time to congratulate the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) on having joined with the right party so as to get good things done; it is indeed a hopeful omen. I have known the hon. Member for a long time, and I have great respect for him, and I know that in his remarks a few moments ago he intended to give credit all round. In spite of the provocation of the Minister, I hope that we may go on quietly with our consideration of these Amendments, and that the right hon. Gentleman will take the advice of the Chief Patronage Secretary and not make his speeches too long.

Mr. Molson: It is a point for the draftsman, rather than for the Minister, but I should have thought that this provision was included in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and, that being so, it is a question whether it is necessary for these words to be set out in full in this Bill.

Question put, and agreed to

CLAUSE 5.—(Surveys of planning areas and preparation of development plans.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 3, at end, insert:
or, in the case of land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, within seven years from that date;

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out "seven," and to insert "four."
In dealing with Lords Amendments in a Bill of this kind one has to keep in mind several documents at the same time, and perhaps I would be in order if I refreshed the mind of the House on the subject matter of this Amendment. This Clause deals with development plans, and a feature of these plans, which is referred to in Subsection (4), is the power to designate land as subject to compulsory purchase. This was the subject of controversy in earlier stages of the Bill, when we took the general view that designation was apt to be a blight on the land, that the threat of ultimate compulsory purchase would prevent its due development, and, in the case of agricultural land in particular, would inhibit long-range plans for improvement of the land and its fertility, which are essential if the agricultural industry is to prosper.
11.30 a.m.
In the Bill as it left us there was a safeguard in the proviso in Subsection (4), which stated that the Minister shall not approve designation of land for compulsory purchase if he is satisfied that the acquisition of the land is not likely to take place within 10 years of the approval of the plan. This Amendment deals with agricultural land, and in another place they have said that in the case of agricultural land, the period should be reduced from 10 years to seven. We seek to improve upon that improvement. I acknowledge that it is an improvement, but we still think that the period of seven years of suspension for agricultural land is too long.
This is an argument difficult to condense, but, in general, as is well known to the House, agricultural operations must be mapped out for years ahead. There is the rotation of crops to be considered,


what land is to be pastured, not next year but five years hence, and that brings in its train complicated plans for the provision of drainage, and, in the case of livestock, for the buildings necessary to house them, for water supplies, and for a host of other ancillary operations to the proper use of agricultural land for food production. That is, in brief, the contention which I put before the House that this seven years, although it is a shorter period, and, therefore, better than 10, is to long a period for agricultural land to be suspended, as it were, from full agricultural planning.
It is always difficult to agree on the precise period. We on this side of the House do not wish to be unreasonable in saying that there should not be some period during which the land should be designated pending the plan being perfected; but I urge on the House in these difficult days, when food supply is one of our main preoccupations, when we are anxious to import as little food from other places as we can and to supplement our rations from our own soil to the greatest possible extent, that in those circumstances, we should regard our agricultural land as very precious to the whole nation, and we should be very chary to do anything which would check its proper development for agricultural purposes. It is with that object in mind that I and my hon. Friends have put down this Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: The Lords Amendment which is before the House represents a compromise. It was arrived at after a good deal of discussion and conference and, I think, was accepted by all Members of another place as a reasonable compromise in the circumstances. I do not say that everyone was satisfied, but it is in the nature of compromises that most people are not entirely satisfied. Seven years, it was thought, was the minimum period that would be of value in carrying out the purposes of designation. The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the purpose of designation was one which was accepted. It is to put on notice to the owner of land that his land will probably be required for public purposes within a certain period, and the Minister has to be satisfied that there is a reasonable probability that it will be so required within that period.
The object of the Amendment to the Lords Amendment is to reduce the period of designation to four years, and I submit that it is quite impossible to carry out effective planning if local authorities are enabled to look only four years ahead. It is fortunate that there will not be a great deal of agricultural land that will be the subject of designation, but where it is the subject of designation, it will be important and may involve fairly long-term projects, and if local authorities were limited to four years, the result would be that they could not carry out their planning effectively.
I see all the points which the right hon. Gentleman made about the value of agriculture and the importance of preserving agricultural land, and I think that the Minister, whoever 'he may be, could be safely entrusted to use the powers in the Bill wisely to ensure that not more agricultural land is acquired or is designated than is absolutely necessary; but when it is, I put it to the House that local authorities ought to be able to look ahead for a longer period than four years. I think that seven years is the minimum, and the Government have gone a long way to meet the views of the agricultural industry. For those reasons, I regret that I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The Minister has said that local authorities ought to be able to look ahead for at least seven years; and perhaps it is desirable that we should explain from this side of the House why we think the period should be four years and not seven. The House will recollect that development plans have to be revised in quinquennial periods. A plan lasts for five years and then a review is held, and it is revised as necessary. We think that in the case of agricultural land the local authorities should be able to look ahead for five years, and say, "If we desire this land within five years we will designate, or if it is desired for a public purpose or for purposes of enforcing a plan we will take it." We say that if they have not taken it as they approach the end of the five-year period, the owner should have the right to extricate himself from the difficulty in which he is placed—and it is a very real difficulty—by this act of designation.
The Minister said in effect—I am not using his exact words—that only in very rare cases would agricultural land be designated. That seems to me to be a most surprising statement, and I hope sincerely that it is correct. I have envisaged all along that local authorities will go pretty quickly about designating agricultural land because, after all, it is the only vacant land open to them to designate for public acquisition. It is unlikely that they will designate land which is already developed, and I should have thought that the most fruitful source of designation by local authorities, either on their own behalf or on behalf of Government Departments or statutory undertakers, would be land which is already uncovered by buildings and used for agricultural purposes.
We ought not to overlook the human aspect of this project. It really is a great difficulty which we are placing on individuals. First of all, there is the difficulty of the owner-occupier. He sees that his land is designated, and so he says, "I must find another farm." He can afford only one farm, and he is in occupation of that; and yet he has this threat hanging over him that within a space of seven years, in the present case, it is likely to be acquired for public purposes. He is unable to take steps to find another property; at any rate he is unable to make an offer for another property, unless he is a very rich man and can afford two farms, until he is certain that his farm will in fact be taken.
All this time—for a period of seven years—this uncertainty is hanging over him. It is not only hanging over the farmer but hanging over all those whose ways of life are dependent on the farmer. It is hanging over his foreman, cattlemen and farm servants who are all dependent on him, and who may have been working for him for years, living upon the farm, wondering, as he is wondering, what their future is to be. If the objection were only on personal grounds we might not feel so strongly, although we feel that it should be strongly pressed, but it is on national grounds, against the gloomy background not only of world food shortage but of the need in these islands to look inwards and to make the most of our natural resources that we feel strongly; for this House is bound, in these days of

economic crisis, to look to the farmer and to the importance of not doing anything that can be avoided to injure the national industry of agriculture.
Many of these men whose land will be designated for public acquisition will want to launch out into new ways, improved methods, different methods, perhaps, under the stress of the need that will be placed upon all of them in the coming years to do all that they can to produce as much food as possible from their own soil. They may want to turn a mixed farm into a dairy farm to produce more milk. It will not be worth while for them to start altering the farm buildings, building perhaps a milk parlour, and making all the alterations that are necessary. These points have been brought to the notice of the House before, and I think that the House is fully seized of the importance of the question, but I suggest from these two points of view—from the personal point of view of hardship to individuals and from the national point of view of the sovereign importance of agriculture at the present time—that this Amendment should be supported.

Mr. C. Williams: I felt rather inclined to sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman when, in his remarks on this Amendment, he laid down quite fairly and clearly the fact that this was the result of a compromise in another place. He said, of course, that it was a compromise in the circumstances. Well, the circumstances of one week ago are not the circumstances of today, as we know very well, and that changes the whole position so far as compromise is concerned. The change of position in the last few days emphasises what the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) and the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) have been urging—that it may well be that very quickly there may come from the Government an enormous demand on the agricultural industry. I have no doubt that agriculturists will stand up to it and do their best, but in view of the very great change that has come about in the last few days, and in view of the fact that the Minister is coming nearer to the position some of us take up, I should have thought that it would have been wise of the Government at the present time, with the things which they have to do in the immediate future,


to say to the agriculture industry, "We wish to encourage you." I should like to emphasise particularly not only the case of the farmer and the owner as some of the people affected today by the uncertainty as to the future, but also the young men who are now coming into industry and whom we shall want in industry. When the hon. Member for West Aberdeen mentioned the cattlemen, I notice a smile spread over the Law Officer's face and he generally does not smile without reason.

11.45 a.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir H. Shawcross): I understood that the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) was referring to cattle, and it did strike me as a little amusing to think of the cattle labouring under a burden of apprehension as to what would happen to them.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not know the difference between cattlemen and cattle, but in spite of his interruption, I will continue my sentence. I gave way quite readily to him because he was labouring under one of his many delusions. [Interruption.] I am glad to have support for that from the other side of the House. I want to emphasise the fact that as far as we are concerned we are representative of the whole of the industry and we suggest it is necessary to encourage the owners and the farmers and to do everything to draw men permanently to that industry. From that point of view, I should have thought that this Government, which calls itself a Labour Government—it is only so in name—would have some interest in the workers.

Colonel Wheatley: Many times while this Bill has been going through its various processes in this House the Minister has told us that he has sympathy for our point of view, but added that we could rely on the common sense of the Minister. Of course, we do not doubt, as far as this Minister is concerned, that that is so, but we do not know what Ministers there are going to be in the future, and, in so far as decisions having to be taken are concerned, everybody is not agreed on what is common sense and what is not. I do not think the Minister really expects the industry of agriculture to rely merely on the assertion that they should be happy with a common-

sense decision being taken. I am sure they would much sooner have something in the Bill, and for that reason I would urge the Minister to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am glad that at long last the right hon. Gentleman has recognised what I argued on the Second Reading, namely, that the effect of designation when subject to compulsory purchase would be to throw a blight upon the agricultural industry within the area so designated. Now that he has recognised it—and it is an important fact—the only question that lies before us is as to the period during which this blight can hang over agricultural land. The blight will deter all long-term and short-term improvement and might prevent the proper and best use of the land. The right hon. Gentleman's argument for resisting our Amendment to reduce the period to four years can really be stated in one sentence. He says that to reduce the period to four years would be to limit unduly the local authorities' power, and that local authorities could then only look four years ahead. With the greatest respect I suggest to him that that argument is entirely fallacious.
This Amendment does not in the least prevent the local planning authority from making a long-term plan. What it does ensure is that whatever may be the plan for the whole of this area, we cannot impose this blight upon a particular part of the plan by designating it as subject to compulsory purchase for more than four years. That is all. If the right hon. Gentleman will agree with that, the fact of not being included in the area subject to compulsory purchase and designated as such does not, in fact, in any way free the land and exclude it from designation and the liability to compulsory purchase. The development plan is subject to quin-quennial review and it may be varied and amended from time to time. Within that five-year period the local planning authority can make its plan and can say, "That is what we are going to do in four years. We are going to designate this area." If, however, after two years they want more land, more speedily they have ample powers under this Measure to designate that fresh land. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that this is the case, and if that be the case, it is quite erroneous to argue that the powers of local authorities will be in any way limited by this provision. They are not.


The local authorities at any time can get the Minister's assent when adding to the Order to designate, and, of course, there is this further safeguard that this Amendment does seek to ensure that the blighting effect of designation on the subject of compulsory purchases shall only be imposed for the shortest possible period.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, bearing in mind the quinquennial review and the powers of amendment with regard to area designation, the planning powers and the powers of local authorities will not be handicapped in the slightest

sense by the acceptance of this Amendment. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman will be doing something to tree farmers and cattlemen, but not of course cattle, from the fear of dispossession hanging over them for another three years. I hope the right hon. Gentleman in the circumstances will see that his arguments as put forward are entirely fallacious, and he will, on second thoughts, accept this Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 215: Noes, 46.

Division No. 347]
AYES.
[11.53 a.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ewart, R
Mathers, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Fernyhough, E.
Mayhew, C. P.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Field, Captain W J
Medland, H. M


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Foot, M. M.
Mellish, R. J


Alpass, J. H.
Forman, J. C
Messer, F.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Foster, W (Wigan)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Attewell, H. C.
Ganley, Mrs C S
Mitchison, G. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Gilzean, A.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Awbery, S. S
Glanville, J E (Consett)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Ayles, W. H
Goodrich, H. E
Moyle, A.


Balfour, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Murray, J D


Barstow, P. G
Greenwood, A W J (Heywood)
Nally, W.


Barton, C
Grenfell, D. R
Naylor, T E


Battley, J. R
Grey, C. F
Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)


Bechervaise, A E
Grierson, E
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Benson. G
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Berry, H.
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Ordfield, W H


Beswick, F
Gunter, R. J
Orbach, M


Bing, G. H. C
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Paget, R.


Blenkinsop, A
Hall, W G.
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)


Blyton, W. R
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
Parker, J


Boardman, H
Harrison, J
Parkin, B. T.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Herbison, Miss M
Pearson, A.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hicks G.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holman, P
Popplewell, E


Bramall, E A.
Hubbard, T
Porter, E (Warrington)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Price, M Philips


Brown, George (Belper)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pritt, D. N


Brown, T. J (Ince)
Irving, W. J.
Proctor W. T


Bruce, Major D W T
Janner, B.
Pryde, D. J


Burden, T. W.
Jay, D. P. T.
Rankin, J


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Rees-Williams, D. R


Chamberlain, R. A
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Reeves, J.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Reid, T (Swindon)


Chetwynd, G. R
Keenan, W
Rhodes, H


Coldrick, W
Kenyon, C
Ridealgh, Mrs [...]


Collick, P.
Kinley, J
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Collindridge, F.
Kirby, B. V
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Colman, Miss G. M
Lavers, S.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Corvedale, Viscount
Les, F. (Hulme)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R
Sargood, R


Daines, P.
Levy, B. W
Scollan, T


Davies, Clement (Mentgomery)
Lindgren, G. S
Scott-Elliot, W


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lipton, Lt.-Col M
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Longden, F
Shackleton, E. A. A


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lyne, A W
Sharp, Granville


Davies, Haydn (St. Pattern, S. W.)
McAdam, W.
Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Deer, G.
McEntee, V. La I
Shurmer, P.


Diamond J.
McGhee, H G.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Dodds, N. N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mackay, R W G. (Hull, N. W)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)
McLeavy, F.
Skinnard, F. W.


Dumpleton, C. W
MacMillan, M K. (Western Isles)
Smith H N (Nottingham, S)


Dye, S.
Mallalieu, J P W
Smith, S. H (Hull, S W.)


Edelman, M
Mann, Mrs J
Snow. Capt. J W


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Solley, L. J.


Edwards, N (Caerphilly)
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Sparks, J A




Stephen, O
Tiffany, S.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Swingler, S.
Tolley, L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Sylvester, G O
Viant, S. P.
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Symonds, A. L
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Woods, G. S.


Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Thomas, D. E. (Aberdaro)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
West, D. G.
Zilliacus, K.


Thomas, George (Cardiff)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)



Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilkins, W. A.
Mr Simmons and Mr. Hannan


Thurtle, Ernest
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)





NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Bennett, Sir P
Headlam, Lieut.-Cal. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Sutcliffe, H.


Boothby, R.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Teeling, William


Bossom, A. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Canon, E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Walker-Smith, D.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Molson, A H. E.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W S. (Clrencester)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Digby, S. W
Nield, B. (Chester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dower, Lt -Col A V G. (Penrith)
Noble, Comdr. A H. P
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drayson, G. B
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Duthie, W. S
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, H C P. (Stone)
Savory, Prof. D. L.
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant


Gage, C




Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: in page 9, line 7, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A—(Modification of development plans in relation to land designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.)

(1) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition, then if at the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the plan, or the amendment of the plan, by virtue of which the land was first so designated came into operation, any of that land has not been acquired by a Minister, local authority or statutory undertakers who could be authorised to acquire it compulsorily under the provisions of this Act, any owner of the land may, within the time and in the manner prescribed by regulations under this Act, serve on the local planning authority a notice requiring his interest in the land to be so acquired.

(2) Where any such notice is served as aforesaid, then unless within six months after the service of the notice either—

(a) notice to treat in respect of the interest to which the notice relates has been served by any such Minister, authority or undertakers as aforesaid; or
(b) an offer has been made to the owner of the said interest by any such Minister, local authority or undertakers to acquire it on terms that the price payable therefor shall be equal to (and shall be determined, in default of agreement, in like manner as) the compensation which would be payable in respect of that interest if it were acquired compulsorily.


the development plan shall have effect, after the expiration of the said six months, as if the land were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition.

(3) The power conferred by Subsection (2) of Section five of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, to withdraw a notice to treat shall not be exercisable in the case of a notice to treat which is served as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing Subsection.

(4) Where any land is designated by a development plan as subject to compulsory acquisition by the appropriate local authority (not being land comprised in an area defined by the plan as an area of comprehensive development) then if permission is granted under Part III of this Act for any development of the land so designated, or any part thereof, and that development is carried out in accordance with the permission so granted, the development plan shall have effect as if the land to which the permission relates were not designated as subject to compulsory acquisition:

Provided that where any such permission as aforesaid is granted for a limited period only, the provisions of this Subsection shall cease to have effect in relation to the land at the expiration of that period.

(5) In relation to land being agricultural land within the meaning of the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Act, 1928, Subsection (1) of this Section shall have effect as if for the words "twelve years" there were substituted the words "eight years."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

12 noon.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 28, at the end, to insert:
and thereafter the land shall not be so designated again until after the end of five years from the expiry of the said six months.
This Amendment concerns the subject that we were discussing earlier, the designation of land for compulsory purchase under a development plan. I have acknowledged the improvement effected by the Amendments moved in another place, and I am sure that this Lords Amendment is also intended as an amelioration of the lot of the owner whose land is designated for compulsory purchase. What it does for him in effect is to give him a remedy if his land is designated but is not acquired within 12 years after such designation. If that period of 12 years elapses without the designated land having been acquired he can demand that it should be acquired and, if it is not, at the end of six months it is automatically free from designation altogether under the proposed new Clause. The intention of that is obvious and beneficial, but I am moving my Amendment in order to make sure that the purpose of the Government in agreeing to this new Clause is not rendered nugatory in this way.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) drew the attention of the House to the machinery which exists in the Bill for the amendment of development plans. One feature of that power of amendment is that it can add land not previously designated for compulsory purposes to land which is already in that category. The short point which my Amendment seeks to secure is that if it is desired to make this new Clause a real safeguard for the man whom it affects, then it is necessary to provide against an authority which has designated the land, and against whom the 12 years and six months have run—the land thus being free from designation—amending its development plan in order to redesignate the land on the following day, to take an extreme case. If that were done it is clear that the machinery for freeing the land which is laid down in the new Clause would be quite worthless. No doubt some control could be exercised by the Minister, but we consider that it is better to have the posi-

tion of that land stated in the Bill. The Amendment proposes that if land has been designated and has not been acquired within 12 years and at the end of that period the owner invokes the procedure of this new Clause and the land is free from designation when six months have elapsed, then there shall be a period of grace of at least five years during which the land shall not be redesignated.
I submit to the House that this is an eminently reasonable suggestion. Hon. Members will remember that the 12 years have run and that the local authority has had the power to acquire the land for 12 whole years. It has not done so at the end of that period, its attention is drawn to the fact that the land is designated by the owner's application, six months go by and nothing is done. The land having once been free, who can say that there could be a case for such an authority amending its plan and redesignating the land? There can be no case for it, and I conceive that the Minister will tell us that if he himself were exercising the power of Minister—although we have to look 12 years hence and it is impossible to prognostigate who will be in his place then—he would be very reluctant to approve the redesignation of the land in circumstances such as those which I have described. Something similar was said by his colleague, when this point was raised on a similar Bill applying to Scotland, but I think his reluctance should be so great as to make him agree that, if land has run on in this way for 12 years, and if all the appropriate steps which he himself is indicating have been taken, then there should be a period of at least five years of grace for that particular land. Otherwise, if the power of amendment of development plans makes the power to reimpose designation a perpetual one, then, although this provision seeks to lift the shadow, the shadow will be there unless my Amendment is accepted.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman has made the best of what I think is a bad job. I presume that he is seeking to protect the owner of land, but is he really protecting him by, this provision? Is it of any value to an owner to have five years' grace and to feel at the end of that period that he may once more—in the words of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—have his land


blighted for a further period of 12½ years? If that were the intention of the local authority he is no better off in having this five years' grace than if the land were designated afresh immediately. The five years would me merely five years of agony and anxiety, and all the arguments that are put forward indicating the evil of designation would apply almost to the same extent because the owner would merely be waiting five years until his land was designated afresh. Therefore, I submit to the House that even from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman's own argument this Amendment does not meet the case. If he were really logical he ought to say that this land ought never to be designated again. One can understand that, but five years' grace is of no value at all. It is not even better than nothing.
The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that redesignation can take place merely at the whim of the Minister. He says that he does not know who will be sitting in my place in 12½ years' time, but, of course, he knows who will not be sitting there. It is unlikely to be either the right hon. Gentleman or myself. It is quite true that we do not know, but is redesignation really going to depend upon the kind of Minister? I would remind the House that in order to redesignate this land the local authority would have to make a fresh plan, they would have once more to hold a public inquiry, at which the owner would no doubt be represented, they would have to satisfy the Minister that the land was reasonably required to be purchased within 10 years, and any Minister knowing that they had had 12½ years already in which to purchase it but had failed to do so would need a great deal of satisfaction before making the Order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman assumes bad faith on the part both of the local authority and of the Minister, I feel that he can rest assured that nobody would wish to redesignate the land merely for the sake of being awkward. There may, of course, be circumstances in which redesignation is really necessary in spite of the fact that the land has not been acquired within the 12½ years. I can conceive such circumstances although I hope that they will be very rare. The very fact that the land had been designated in the plan once would be an indication that it was neces-

sary. It is true that the authority would have been dilatory, or there might have been changes in their priorities or other circumstances which prevents them purchasing the land, but its acquisition might, still be urgently necessary in the public interest. Local authorities ought not to be prevented from acquiring land or held up for five years in such a case, rare as it might be.
I believe that the owner is amply protected by the fact that a local authority wishing to redesignate—which would be a very unpopular course—would have to go through the whole procedure of a new plan, a public inquiry, advertisements and satisfying the Minister. I can imagine no local authority doing such a thing except under dire necessity, but if that dire necessity did arise, they ought not to have to wait five years. In these circumstances I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Molson: The argument used by the right hon. Gentleman against the proposed Amendment is almost identical with that which he advanced in the Committee when hon. Members on this side of the House originally asked that there should be the kind of safeguard which is provided in the Lords Amendment and which the right hon. Gentleman is now accepting. The argument at that time was forcible, but whatever force there was in it was against the acceptance of the additional Clause which the right hon. Gentleman is now accepting. If it were, in fact, the case, that there was no serious danger of the blight of designation hanging indefinitely over land, there would not be any need, as in various stages of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has said there was, to apply the provision for re-designation or for giving to the owner of land the right to call upon the local authority for compulsory acquisition.
Since the right hon. Gentleman is accepting the proposed new Clause in order to meet the criticism that was made that the blight of designation could be extended over land indefinitely without the owner of the land having any power to call upon the local authority to acquire it compulsorily, and since the right hon. Gentleman now agrees that the Clause is desirable for that purpose, it surely must also be desirable that it should not be pos-


sible for the local authority if it wishes to do so to evade the right of the owner to call upon the local authority compulsorily to acquire by just neglecting to do so, and then applying for re-designation afterwards. All that the further Amendment seeks to do is to make fully operative the new Clause which the right hon. Gentleman is accepting, and which he regards as necessary for the legitimate defence of the landowner.

Mr. C. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman said in his reply that if we had wished to be logical we should have put down an Amendment to secure that the land should never be designated again. That would not really be practicable, for the reason that there would then be certain portions of land after 12½ years that could not be designated in the future. That is not our purpose. The real purpose of the Amendment is that we should not apply a sort of "Cat-and-Mouse" Act to the owner and occupier of the land. At the end of the 12½ years it would be possible to begin the whole designation process right over again, in exactly the same way as letting a man out of prison and then sending him back next morning. It would handicap the development of the land to treat it in that way.
Let me give a simple and clear illustration. Suppose there is a co-operative society, with a farm very near to a town, developing that farm to serve the society's shops. For 12½ years they have been uncertain how far they could develop but, at the end of that time, if our Amendment is not accepted that land is able to be designated again almost at once. Surely, it would be better to give the society a period of grace during which the land could not be designated again? I would not say that the land must never be re-designated. Surely, we might say to the co-operative society, "You have five years' grace in which you can go on and make your developments." I could extend this illustration to other sections of the community. On occasions such as this the Minister has been rather hard. I appeal to him to believe that we are trying to be fair to the man as well as to make the Bill work, and not to leave in the Bill something which is reminiscent of the "Cat-and-Mouse" Act.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 52, to leave out "eight" and to insert "five."
If hon. Members look at the new Clause proposed by the other place they will see that whereas 12 years is the limit for land, eight years is to be substituted for 12, by Subsection (5), in the case of agricultural land, which then comes within the operation of Subsection (1) four years earlier than ordinary land. We are suggesting by the Amendment that the term of eight years should be reduced to five. No doubt you would consider it in Order, Mr. Speaker, if I repeated the arguments in favour of agriculture which I put before the House a moment ago, but I will not abuse the House in that way. I will content myself with suggesting that as agricultural land plays such a vital part in our economy, the remedy for the owner of agricultural land which has a designation shadow upon it should be accelerated in the way which I suggest. He should be able to call the powers of the Clause into force if the land has not been used for five years.

Mr. Silkin: I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would not seriously press this Amendment. The House has now agreed that the appropriate period of compulsory purchase in respect of agricultural land is eight years. What is now suggested is that at the end of five years the owner should be in a position to serve a notice requiring the local authority to buy, presumably at six months' notice. The Amendment would nullify the provision to which the House has already agreed and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press it.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 18.—(Obligation to purchase land on refusal of permission in certain cases.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 14, leave out "to be" and insert:
having regard to the probable ultimate use of the land, that it is.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

12.30 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, to leave out from "to," to "that," and to insert:
the purpose for which the land is to be purchased.
This is an attempt to improve upon the Minister's drafting. It raises no divergence of principle between us. The Clause of the Bill to which it relates is that covering the case where the owner of land is refused planning permission and the effect is to render his land incapable of reasonably beneficial use. He may in certain cases require the local authority to purchase the land. The Lords Amendment which I am seeking to amend says that one of the things the Minister can do is to secure that a local authority, other than the one which originally served the notice on the man, shall have power to take over the land. Perhaps I had better read the exact words. It says:
If it appears to the Minister to be expedient so to do, he may, if he confirms the notice, modify it by substituting any other local authority for the council on whom the notice is served, and in any such case the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall have effect. …
By the Amendment the Minister is directed, when he exercises this power, to have regard:
…. to the probable ultimate use of the land.…
We think that the purpose for which the land is acquired is a more objective test than mere speculation as to the ultimate probable destination of the land. It is a very small point and I do not propose to push it very hard, but as the Clause now reads, the Minister's mind is directed to something which is rather too nebulous to form an accurate test:
…. the probable ultimate use of the land.…
"Ultimate" is a long way away. No one can forecast the ultimate use of the land. To the speculative word "ultimate" is added the still more speculative word "probable." The criterion there is of so nebulous a character that it will not enable the Minister to stand upon any firm ground of judgment. I agree that power to vary the authority is necessary, but it should be done on a firm test which can be apprehended not only by the

Minister but by everyone. The purpose for which the land is acquired is a thing known to everybody and the Minister can assess its value by a common standard, but if it is to be:
…. the probable ultimate use of the land. …
that is a matter of pure opinion and guesswork, and consequently I am moving this Amendment for the purpose of getting a more objective material test for the operation of this Clause.

Mr. Silkin: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment in the interests of clarity and good drafting, but that there is no difference in principle between us. I have very carefully considered the words he proposes to substitute, and I am bound to say that in my judgment he would add confusion to confusion rather than add clarity. May I remind him of the reasons leading to the acquisition of this land? First, planning consent has been refused. Secondly, by reason of the refusal, the land has been rendered capable of beneficial use. The owner can then call upon the local authority to buy the land. The purpose for which the land is to be acquired is not for any particular function of the local authority. It is a purchase which is being imposed upon them by the owner because of the refusal of planning permission. The local authority may have no particular purpose in mind. In a sense this is something they would have to do to remove hardship on the owner. Therefore, to insert,
… the purpose for which the land is to be purchased.…
is to make a false criterion. On the other hand, once the local authority has this land, it has to consider what should be done with it. It may be that when the Minister takes into account the possible use of the land, he may decide that the probable use will justify purchase by some other local authority than the one which has refused the planning consent. It seems to me that the right criterion is
… the probable ultimate use of the land.…
rather than
… the purpose for which the land is to be purchased.…
I recognise that the term
.…the probable ultimate use of the land. …


is vague and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but even more so I say that
… the purpose for which the land is to be purchased.…
has no real meaning. While I would not necessarily stand by every word of the phrase
.…the probable ultimate use of the land.…
if something better can be devised, the decision to substitute another authority must be related to what is to be done with the land rather than with the reason for the original purchase. In those circumstances, I regret that I cannot accept the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 46, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE B.—(Agreements regulating development or use of land.)

(1) A local planning authority may, with the approval of the Minister, enter into an agreement with any person interested in land in their area for the purpose of restricting or regulating the development or use of the land, either permanently or during such period as may be prescribed by the agreement, and any such agreement may contain such incidental and consequential provisions (including provisions of a financial character) as appear to the local planning authority to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the agreement.

(2) An agreement made under this Section with any person interested in land may be enforced by the local planning authority against persons deriving title under that person in respect of that land as if the local planning authority were possessed of adjacent land and as if the agreement had been expressed to be made for the benefit of such land.

(3) Nothing in this Section or in any agreement made thereunder shall be construed as restricting the exercise, in relation to land which is the subject of any such agreement, of any powers exercisable by any Minister or authority under this Act, so long as those powers are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan or in accordance with any directions which may have been given by the Minister under Section thirty-six of this Act, or as requiring the exercise of any such powers otherwise than as aforesaid.

(4) The power of a local planning authority to make agreements under this Section may be exercised also—

(a) in relation to land m a county district, by the council of that district;

(b) in relation to land in the area of a joint planning board, by the council of the county or county borough in which the land is situated,

and references in this Section to a local planning authority shall be construed accordingly.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is the Clause to which the right hon. Gentleman referred in the first speech he made today as reinstating Section 34 of the 1932 Act with regard to agreements regulating the development or use of land. We are glad to see that he has to some extent acceded to the arguments we put forward at the earlier stage of the Bill, but I want to ask one or two questions which call for an answer. Perhaps the Attorney-General can answer this? What is now the position, if this Clause goes through, with regard to an agreement by deed made under the 1932 Act by a local planning authority? There is nothing, so far as I can find, in this Bill to declare that those agreements under Section 34 of the 1932 Act shall be null and void. On the other hand there is nothing, so far as I can see, in this Bill to say that those agreements shall still remain in effect. Before we part with this Clause, we ought to be told what the position is now with regard to those agreements, particularly when those agreements are entered into, as many have been, by a local authority by deed under seal in the most solemn and binding fashion in which a local authority can make a contract.
I apprehend that this raises a question of some substance. There have been cases where agreements have been made which have served a useful purpose from a town and country planning point of view. We have had some instances where those agreements have not been so beneficial but where a man has voluntarily entered into an agreement subjecting his land to restrictions and limiting his powers to use the land, and the agreement has been made by deed. What will now happen to that deed made by the local authority under powers conferred by the 1932 Act.

Mr. Medland: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean agreements for private open spaces?

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Agreements regulating the development or use of land under Section 34 of the 1932 Act, which


empowered authorities and owners to enter into agreements restricting the use of land. There are a variety of agreements of that sort. No matter what the particular, agreement related to, we ought to know before we pass from the Clause to what extent such an agreement made under powers conferred by Parliament will remain valid and in force. We really do get into a rather astonishing position if we say that an agreement made under the 1932 Act which is valid up to today ceases to be valid because Section 34 of the 1932 Act goes, so that the whole field is reopened and fresh agreements have to be entered into. I hope the Attorney-General will answer this quite clearly: Is it the case that the effect of the repeal of Section 34 is that a deed made by a local authority such as the London County Council is also to be treated as null and void?
I want to speak about the words of this Clause. I do not propose to comment upon Subsections (1) and (2). They are very similar to Section 34. But Subsection (3) is something quite new, and, as I read it, its effect is that although the owner is empowered under Section 34 to enter into a binding agreement with a local planning authority and the local authority is empowered to enter into a binding agreement with him, power is reserved by Subsection (3) for the local authority to say at any time it wishes, "This agreement is not binding on us and so far as we are concerned, it is merely a scrap of paper." That is the real effect of Subsection (3)—
Nothing in this Section or in any agreement made thereunder shall be construed as restricting the exercise, in relation to land which is the subject of any such agreement, of any powers exercisable by any Minister or authority under this Act…
"Authority" would include the local planning authority, the party to the agreement, so notwithstanding what was in the agreement which the local planning authority had voluntarily agreed to, this Clause, as I read it, would permit the local planning authority to tear up the document to which it had signed its name. If that view of the Clause is right, I can only say that, if it goes into the Bill, I hope that local authorities will not exercise the powers which it clearly gives them of repudiating documents they have signed. On the other hand, I cannot believe that if this power of repudiation is allowed to exist, local authorities will find many people willing to enter into fresh agreements under this

Clause. It can be summed up in one sentence. If any man makes such an agreement, under the terms of this Clause the local authority can say "Heads I win, tails you lose."

12.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General: There is really nothing startling in the provisions of Subsection (3), to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has alluded. That Subsection makes it clear that an agreement made under this Clause cannot permanently over-ride the planning powers of the Bill. It may be that, subsequently to the Agreement, circumstances have changed, a new situation has developed, and that action has to be taken by the Minister or the authority under the Bill in order to secure certain other planning objects.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said, that it could not permanently over-ride the powers of the Bill. Does it over-ride them at all, even temporarily?

The Attorney-General: It is a matter of degree. One would assume that a local authority, having entered into an agreement, would not immediately thereafter seek to vary it or depart from it. It might be, however, that the circumstances might change in a very short time and, if so, the authority would have to discharge its duties. It is one of the best known, most elementary and, I respectfully venture to think, important principles of our constitution that executive authority of this nature vested in a Minister, or vested by a Parliamentary Statute in a public authority, cannot be fettered or contracted out of by contract. The Crown, the Minister and the authority in which certain obligations are reposed under this Statute must be free to discharge their duties if the circumstances do change. Those who enter into contracts of this kind do so in the full knowledge that, if the circumstances change, it may be that the powers conferred by this Clause will be exercised, and the agreement will be modified or departed from. There is no compulsion on them to enter into the contract, and they do so in the full knowledge that that is the position which may arise under them. They will be safe in practice if the circumstances remain as they were at the time of the agreement being entered into, but if there is a change of circumstances which makes it necessary to pro-


cure other planning objects, then the local authority must be left free to do so.
On the other point, we may have an opportunity of discussing that on the Tenth Schedule, but the position is that under one of the Lords Amendments to that Schedule, in page 157, line 38, provision is made for retaining the existing agreements and modifying or revoking them in case of need. The matter has not been lost sight of, and machinery is there established in regard to it.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am astonished at the general doctrine which the learned Attorney-General has brought to bear to justify this, that under no circumstances must the executive be allowed to make a binding contract in case it chooses to change its mind next week. I thought that in the Crown Proceedings Bill we had been trying to bring the executive, as far as we could, into line with the ordinary law. Now we are told that the executive must have an overriding discretion to change its mind whenever it wants to do so, which I should have thought was making hay of the whole thing. What possible inducement is there for anybody to take advantage of this Clause if it is purely one-sided? Why should anybody bind himself to a certain course of action if he knows that the other contracting party is free to change his mind tomorrow? I should have thought that the whole purpose of this Clause, which is indeed an admirable Clause, intended to make landowners co-operate in these difficult matters, would be destroyed by this Subsection.
I would have no objection to a provision which said that the parties might put in a timetable 5, 10 or 15 years, or a provision which said that in any event no agreement was to be binding for more than 15 or 20 years. Surely, planners can see a little ahead? I agree that after some recent experiences that is perhaps an unwise assumption, but surely planners can see some small distance ahead and, if that is the assumption, I should have thought you were entitled to make an agreement to last at least for that duration, which people are normally expected to see ahead. But even that does not apply.
One would trust the local authority not to break the agreement unless for good

cause, but there are at least two other people who can step in and cause trouble. One is the Minister and the other is the Central Land Board. One may perhaps assume that the Minister will behave reasonably in these matters, though that may be a rash assumption, extended over too many years, but I do not see that anybody at this moment has any ground for supposing that the Central Land Board will behave reasonably, because we have not yet the slightest idea of what it will do, and I view a board of this kind with the gravest apprehension, as I have said in the course of the corresponding Scottish Bill. Nobody making an agreement of this sort can be happy about the discretion of the Central Land Board or even the Minister, whatever he may think about the local authorities. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that, even at this late stage, he might do something to modify this Clause to make it of some use. Speaking as a lawyer, if anybody came to me and asked whether he should enter into a contract under this Clause, I should say, "Don't touch it with a barge pole."

Mr. Henry Strauss: I hope the Minister will respond to the appeals to look at this matter again. I am well aware, as I am sure the Minister is aware, of the great anxiety felt by the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, and other bodies, on the treatment of these agreements. Section 34 of the 1932 Act has been of great benefit to planning authorities because, under it, they have been able to secure the preservation of open spaces. There was, however, a defect in the law from the point of view of the central planning authority in that agreements under Section 34 could be entered into without the consent of the Minister, and that is why, when we revised the law in 1943, we provided that thereafter an agreement of this kind would need the approval of the Minister. From inquiries made at that time it was clear, however, that Section 34 agreements taken as a whole were very much to the public advantage.
I admit that circumstances may arise where it may be necessary on public grounds to interfere with almost anything, but, surely, in circumstances of that sort, what may be required is legislation. To say that one party to an agreement can simply ignore it is to make a most startling proposition, and is bound to have the effect that a private land-


owner will simply not enter into an agreement of that kind. It will not help the Minister in the least to have this Subsection in the Bill; it will defeat the very object which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. If it is desirable that these agreements should continue at all—and certainly the view of the amenities societies, so far as I know, remains what it always has been, that such agreements are desirable—then I hope, while a great deal of this new Clause is admirable, that the Minister will restrict the powers at present appearing in Subsection (3).

The Attorney-General: With the permission of the House, perhaps I might add a word. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), with his usual ingenuity and skill, has succeeded in introducing a red herring in this matter. The Central Land Board is not really concerned or affected in any way by the provisions of this Clause, which deal with agreements between the local planning authority and a person interested in the land, and whilst an agreement between the local planning authority and the person interested in the land could not fetter the duties which are imposed upon the other bodies which are not parties to that agreement. This Clause seeks to say that, notwithstanding any agreement which may have been arrived at, these authorities which are specified in Subsection (3) of the Clause are to remain free. I agree that it includes the party to the agreement—[An HON, MEMBER: "Ah!"]—certainly, it includes the party to the agreement, but that is the local planning authority. Any agreement made by that body would not in the normal course fetter the jurisdiction of the Minister or the powers of the Central Land Board; but the purpose of this Clause is not only to preserve that situation but to preserve it also in relation to the local planning authority. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested that this somewhat novel principle is in some way inconsistent with the provisions of the Crown Proceedings Act, but he will remember the Amphitrite case, where it was laid down in the clearest terms that it is not in the public interest for the executive, the Crown to fetter its future execution action by contract.
The Crown cannot contract out of obligations. It has to forward the public

interest and that is, in effect, what this Clause ensures. It provides that although there may have been contracts, if circumstances change and the public interest otherwise demands, then,
so long as those powers are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan or in accordance with any directions which may have been given by the Minister
those powers can continue to be exercised. There is nothing far-reaching or startling in this provision, and I hope that hon. Members opposite will recognise that it is consonant with ordinary principles.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: Is not the point of the addition of the words in the Clause, which do not exist in Section 34 of the 1932 Act:
with the approval of the Minister
precisely to secure that each of these agreements should in the view of the Minister be in the public interest? The point I wish to put is that notwithstanding those words, if Subsection (3) is left as it stands, the Minister can approve a development plan which simply ignored the view he had expressed, perhaps two days previously, in approving an agreement.

The Attorney-General: I agree that is the legal position. It might be that within two days the circumstances would dramatically change. I do not think that is likely, but if the circumstances had not changed and the Minister was guilty of such astonishing conduct as to approve a development plan in complete contradiction to something he had approved the day before, no doubt suitable action would be taken against him in this House. Ministers do not act in that way as a rule, and it is not necessary or desirable to provide by legislative provision against the risk that they may do so. This preserves the power of any authority to act and carry out planning functions if circumstances change and the necessity arises.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said I was wrong in referring to the Central Land Board. A development plan may be made, and following on that, an agreement may be made under this Clause, with the approval of the Minister, restricting a development of certain land which might otherwise be permissible under the plan.


Now the Central Land Board can buy with the object of re-selling to other people for the purposes of developing. The Land Board ought to be bound in that case, but as far as I see this Clause does not hamper them taking such steps as they think fit to buy the land and re-sell it in defiance of the covenant. Whether that is to be revoked, I do not know, but I do not think it matters. If the Central Land Board had a good customer and convinced the Minister that a good customer was a change of circumstances, they could get rid of the agreement.

Mr. Silkin: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) is quite wrong. A prospective purchaser from the Central Land Board would still have to apply planning provisions. It would be a revocation, not by the Central Land Board, but by the local authority. The fact that the Central Land Board come into it is irrelevant.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: If I may, as a layman, enter this discussion in which, so far, no person has been permitted to take part unless he is a distinguished lawyer, I would like to ask a question which worries me considerably. Is the Minister seriously saying that if I am a person interested in this land and enter into a contract with the local planning authority, the local planning authority under certain circumstances can say "We can no longer carry out our part of the contract as circumstances have arisen which make it no longer possible for us to do so"? Supposing that involved me, as an ordinary layman, in very great hardship and loss, would I have some remedy? I am not asking whether I could hold them to the letter of the contract, but this change of mind on the part of the planning authority might have involved me in very great loss. Would I have some means of getting compensation for what had occurred, or would my only consolation be that I ought to have realised when I entered the contract that they could not be held to the letter of the law if the occasion arose?

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I think it is true that so far we have only had arguments by learned counsel, in which I am interested, but do not pretend to be able to take part. But

looking at it, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith and Cockermouth (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) from the outside, I should think that the contention of the Attorney-General is wrong, because I should think "any authority" under this Act would include the Central Land Board.

The Attorney-General: In order to see what contracts are contemplated, one has to look at Subsection (1) which is quite explicit in mentioning a local planning authority which may enter into contracts, and contracts into which it enters, even with the approval of the Minister, cannot affect third parties.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I got that point, but what confused me was the subsequent intervention of the Minister. I can understand the argument on a high legal basis, or the argument on a lay basis, but I do not see the two flats joining at any point. What the ordinary man in the street would like to know is why anybody should want to enter any of these contracts. The object of the Clause is that such contracts should be entered into, but all the explanations have been directed to proving that no such contract is worth the paper upon which it is written. I now understand that point. That is the point to which the Attorney-General is directing his argument and he has fully convinced me of that. I do not then understand why the Government have taken the trouble to put this into the Bill, and I was hoping the Minister would explain that. But all he explained was that the Central Land Board could act only in accordance with directions from the Minister, if it intervened in such a thing. That did not quite square with the explanations of the Attorney-General that the Central Land Board was not concerned, because it could not be bound. We agree that these contracts can be altered at will. I still do not understand, and I appeal to the Minister as one layman to another. I know he is learned in the law, but if he could dismiss his legal knowledge for a moment and approach this as an ordinary citizen, I would like to know why anyone should enter a contract, in view of the explanations given by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps as man to man I can try to answer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. One enters into the con-


tract accepting the good faith of both parties, and I think that normally one can do so. Neither party is obliged to enter into the contract, the local authority or the individual. They enter in good faith, believing that it is for the public interest, and in the interest of the individual. We are accepting the position that planning is something flexible today. In the past it has been static, as no one knows better than the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. But circumstances do change, and less than every five years there is provision for review. On the occasion of such a review it may turn out that, looking at the best interests of the area, it may be desired to make some changes. That cannot be done at will, by a stroke of the pen, but there has to be a public inquiry. The owner can state his case, and if at the end of the day it is in the public interest that a change should be made, that change is made, and of course the Minister has to approve. On the assumption that everyone is acting in good faith, is not that the right thing? Subsection (3) will cause every one to be prudent in entering these things——

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Suspicious.

Mr. Silkin: They will not enter lightly into a thing knowing there is a possibility that they may have to revoke. It would be quite in conflict with the conception of flexibility, in planning to have an agreement which in no circumstances could be revoked.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: As one who has had administrative experience, I can quite understand the right hon. Gentleman's point. We know that the Crown does not wish to bind this House by something which can never be revoked. But what about having some shorter period? It would be wrong for the Crown to bind itself for all time in a perpetual bargain. It is true that the contracts are entered into in good faith and foresight by either party. The five-year review period is for the local authority and the higher authority, and it would not be unreasonable if the Crown assumed responsibility for, let us say, a period of five years. That would lead to prudence being exercised on the part of the Crown. If one enters a contract which one can rub out at any moment, it is entered somewhat more light-heartedly than a contract which is to run for some time. The Minister says that he can be called to book on the Floor of

the House, but a Minister who is going to have an awkward question asked, turns up his coat-collar and watches the clock and says, "My invariable ally will see me through." It is quite a different matter if he has entered a contract on which he can be challenged in the courts. I asked the Minister to consider the possibility of such a period. I put it no higher than that.

1.15 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I understood the Attorney-General's point to be that the Executive should not be expected to bind itself in future. By that argument he is really missing the point of what it is to which we take exception in this Clause. What we do not like about it is that a local planning authority should be authorised to enter into an agreement which it can revoke the following day. That has nothing whatever to do with the Executive binding itself for the future.

Mr. Silkin: Surely the hon. Member is overstating his case, which I am sure he would not wish to do. It cannot revoke it the following day. This is an operation which must take a long time. It must be by way of a fresh development plan and a public inquiry.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The wording of Subsection (3) of the proposed new Clause says:
… powers exercisable by any Minister of authority under this Act, …
As I understand it, an authority under this Act would certainly include a local planning authority.

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Member would continue reading, he would see that the Subsection goes on to say:
… so long as those powers axe exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan …
That must mean that there must be a fresh development plan, otherwise the agreement could not have been entered into at all, and a development plan does assume a public inquiry and opportunity for objections. It cannot be done by a stroke of the pen.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think that there is some misunderstanding between the two sides of the House. Certainly, as I understand these words, they will mean that any powers which are exercisable under


an existing development plan could be brought in aid to revoke at any date whatever an agreement which had been made. If that were the position, it would be open to any local planning authority which had entered into such a contract to say at any period, "In order to carry out our plans we shall have to revoke this agreement, because we have the powers to do so under the existing development plan." In other words, it would not mean having to bring in aid any new machinery whatever. If that is the correct interpretation of this Subsection, I think it is wrong. I understand from the Minister's interpretation that he is on the whole disposed to agree with that. If, of course, the Subsection means that before any revocation can be made some machinery has to be called in aid which would involve the exercise of powers by some outside person, in that case I should be perfectly willing to accept the decision of the Minister upon it. If it means that, I think there is really little difference of opinion between the two sides of the House.

Mr. Silkin: Mr. Silkin rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I do not wish to curtail Debate, but I must remind the House that we are not now in the Committee stage, and that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen cannot make a second speech without securing the leave of the House

Mr. Silkin: I was about to say, with the leave of the House, that I am willing to give an assurance that this provision will not be operated except after the procedure of a fresh development plan.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: If I may speak again, by leave of the House, I would say that I think that what the Minister has just said really meets the point we have raised. I am not quite certain as to what extent it provides that an agreement made under Subsection (1) will be reflected in a development plan. I am not satisfied that the revocation of an agreement by a local planning authority must necessitate the alteration or revision of the development plan. After all, there is an agreement which says that this land must not be used for a particular purpose, and then that agreement can be revoked by a local authority, without necessarily meaning that the

local authority has to get a revision of the local plan. That is the point which worries me. We have had a valuable Debate, which I do not wish to prolong. I would ask the Minister to consider the matter again carefully to make quite certain that the local authority cannot have it both ways the whole time, that it is not "Heads I win, tails you lose." Perhaps the Minister will look at the matter, and try to meet the serious point that a local authority which has entered into an agreement should at least be bound to it for five years, subject to getting the approval of the Minister if a reduction of that period is desired. One does not like the idea of a local authority being able to repudiate its signature the next day. If the Minister says he will consider it again, I do not think we need pursue this matter any longer.

CLAUSE 40.—(Power to acquire buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 47, line 33, at end, insert:
(4) Any person having an interest in any building which it is proposed to acquire compulsorily under this Section may, within twenty-eight days after the service of the notice required to be served under paragraph 3 of the First Schedule to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, 1946, apply to a court of summary jurisdiction for the petty sessional division or place within which the building to which the notice relates is situated for an order staying further proceedings on the compulsory purchase order, and if the court is satisfied that reasonable steps are being taken for properly preserving the building, they shall make an order accordingly.
Any person aggrieved by the decision of a court of summary jurisdiction under this Subsection may appeal against that decision to a court of quarter sessions

Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 33, after the Amendment last inserted, insert:
(4) Where any building is acquired under the provisions of Subsection (1) of this Section the council of the county or county borough of county district, by whom the building is acquired shall observe the provisions of the building preservation order relating to that building.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 2, to leave out "of Subsection (1)."
This is an exploratory Amendment which I can explain in a very few words. The object which we seek to accomplish, though our Amendment may not be necessary for that purpose, is one which I think the Minister will approve. It will be observed that Clause 40 not only gives power to acquire the building compulsorily under Subsection (1), but also provides, under Subsection (4), for the acquisition of a building by agreement, if it is a building
as respects which a building preservation order could be made by the local planning authority.
The Amendment that has come from another place secures that where a building is acquired under the provisions of Subsection (1) of this Clause, the acquiring authority shall observe the provisions of the building preservation order relating to that building. We want to be certain about what the position will be where a building is acquired by voluntary agreement under Subsection (4). Is the Minister satisfied, first, that if there is a preservation order in force in regard to that building it will be binding on the local authority; and secondly, if there is not a building preservation order in force, he will, if necessary, be able to make one after the voluntary acquisition? It is for these two contingencies that we have endeavoured, I am not certain whether effectively, to provide by this proposed Amendment. I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman whether he is satisfied that without the Amendment I am moving the position is satisfactorily secured.

Mr. Molson: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: This Amendment, as the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) has said, has been put down out of an abundance of caution. I can assure him that that is the case. If he will look at Clause 98 (2) of the Bill he will find that there is provision for the Minister, after consultation with the local planning authority, to make a building preservation order, or, if he regards it as necessary, he can give directions to the local planning authority to make a building preservation order or an order amending or revoking a building preservation order. I am advised that that meets the case.

Mr. Molson: As I seconded formally the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), I believe that I have technically already spoken. Perhaps, with the leave of the House, I might put this point. Is there any objection to this Amendment which we have moved? It gives these powers only in the case of any acquisition under this Clause as a whole. I would ask the Minister whether there is any object in including the words which we are seeking to leave out. If those words are left out, the provision will operate in respect of all acquisitions under the Clause as a whole.

Mr. Silkin: I am advised that the words of the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities would not do what was necessary.

Mr. H. Strauss: On the assurance of the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Lord's Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 42.—(Acquisition of land by Central Land Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 49, line 30, at end insert:
(6) Provision may be made by regulations under this Act for requiring the Central Land Board to keep a register containing such particulars as may be prescribed by the regulations of land acquired and disposed of under this section, and for the inspection of any such register by the public on payment of such reasonable fee, if any, as may be so prescribed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one question in regard to this new Subsection. Under Subsection (1) of this Clause, the Central Land Board may acquire land for the purpose of disposing of it for development on terms inclusive of any development charge payable under those provisions in respect of that development. This proposed Amendment prescribes the keeping of a register containing particulars of land acquired and disposed of under


this Clause. In that register will a development charge which may be included under Subsection (1) be shown separately? I think it should be. Provision is made by Subsection (1) for what I call an inclusive transaction. When we come to the register, persons inspecting it should be able to distinguish between what has been received in payment for any development charge and what in fact has been received for the land. I only raise this point quite shortly because I feel hopeful that this time the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give an undertaking that the register will be kept in that form.

Mr. Silkin: I am not able to give an undertaking on this point because I am not sure at the moment whether it would involve a separate examination. I am quite prepared to examine the point, and if it will not involve either any disadvantage to the public interest or any undue amount of work, certainly I will agree that it should be done.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I put one other point? Surely, it would be to the advantage of the Central Land Board and to the public to keep the two things separate from the point of view of looking back to see what the development charge was and what the price of the land was?

Mr. Silkin: I will take that into consideration.

CLAUSE 47.—(Power to stop up and divert highways, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 55, line r6, after "Act" insert:
or to be carried out by a Government department.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Again this is a small point, but it is not without some importance. Under Subsection (1) of Clause 47 it is stated that:
… the Minister of Transport may, it he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in order to enable development to be carried out in accordance with planning permission granted under Part III of this Act, by order made in accordance with the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act authorise the stopping up or diversion of any highway.

By the addition of these words, one is giving the Minister of Transport power by order to stop up footpaths in the countryside, highways, and country roads where the development is to be carried out by a Government Department. I venture to suggest that the granting of that power to a Government Department really wants a little investigation. Will the development to be carried out by a Government Department be in conformity with a development plan, or can a Government Department carry out development not in accordance with the plan? Apparently, under this Clause a Government Department wanting to make any development will not have to get planning permission under Part III of this Act, and will not, in fact, have to refer the matter to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. All it will have to do is to satisfy the Minister of Transport that it wants to make a development and then the Minister of Transport may, by Order, close highways, country lanes, footpaths, and things of that sort. It may, be right, but I think we ought to have a little explanation upon how this Amendment will operate.

Mr. Silkin: This will operate in the same way as all other Government operations do operate. There is co-operation between the Departments. It would be quite unthinkable for one Government Department to commence operations without consulting the Minister of Town and Country Planning and getting agreement. If they fail to get agreement, the matter would have to be settled in the usual way. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that Government Departments will not act arbitrarily. They will conform with the plan. I have said this over and over again in Committee and, of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman knows exactly what I do say about these things by now. In 999 cases out of a thousand the thing works, and once in a thousand cases there is a slip up. The normal procedure is that the approval of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning is sought and obtained in these matters.

CLAUSE 49.— [Compensation for compulsory acquisition after appointed day.)

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 14, at end, insert:
(b) where at any time before the said date an order has been made under Section


twenty-six of this Act requiring the removal of any building or the discontinuance of any use, and compensation has become payable in respect of that order under section twenty-seven of this Act, it shall be assumed for the purposes aforesaid that planning permission would not be granted for the rebuilding of that building or the resumption of that use.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams: This seems to be a rather fuller Amendment than some of the others. Could we have some explanation of it? If it is one of the 200 drafting Amendments, it is fairly considerable. I would like to know where we stand, especially in regard to the last three or four words.

Mr. Silkin: Could the hon. Gentleman say what is his difficulty?

Mr. Williams: My difficulty is that I want an explanation of what the words mean, if it is possible to have one.

Lords Amendment agreed to: In page 58, line 14, after the Amendment last inserted, insert:
(3) Without prejudice to any rule of law affecting the assessment of compensation in respect of the compulsory acquisition of land in pursuance of any enactment, no account shall be taken in calculating the value of an interest in land designated by a development plan under this Act as subject to compulsory acquisition of any depreciation in the value of that interest which is attributable to the designation.

Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 14, after the Amendment last inserted, insert:
(3) Where, at any time before the date of the notice to treat, planning permission has been granted under Part III of this Act for any development of the land, other than development of any class specified in the Third Schedule to this Act, or is deemed to have been so granted, then except where either—

(a) any sum has been paid under Part VII of this Act by way of development charge in respect of that development; or
(b) no such charge is payable in respect of that development by virtue of any of the provisions of Part VIII of this Act;

the value of the interest to which the notice to treat relates shall be calculated as if that permission had not been granted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 5, after "granted" to insert:
or has been granted since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If it is agreeable to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it might be convenient to take the two other Amendments to the Lords Amendment at the same time.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Of course, I am only too glad to do that. The first and third Amendments really seek to deal with different points from those of the second Amendment. Therefore, I propose to start what I am afraid may be a fairly lengthy speech by dealing with the first and third Amendments and then I shall come back to the point of the second Amendment. The third Amendment is, at the end of line 12, to insert:
or would have been payable if the planning permission granted since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, had been granted under Part III of this Act.
The second Amendment is, at the end of line 12, to insert:
or would have been so payable if that permission had not been revoked.
These Amendments raise a rather complicated and difficult point which I shall try to state as clearly as I can. The Amendment from another place is an endeavour to meet a point I raised on Report stage and to some extent it meets it successfully. However, it still contains what I regard as a rather grave flaw. I hope that after he has heard the argument the right hon. Gentleman will promise to do his best to meet it. The point I raised on Report stage was that in Clause 78 as it now is, ripe land was excluded from liability to pay a development charge and the right to obtain compensation. I suggested that that may be all right, but when ripe land is acquired compulsorily, then wholly different circumstances apply, and, unless some alteration is made, the owner of ripe land will be penalised by the fortuitous fact that a local authority seeks to acquire it. The Amendment from another place sought to deal with that point, and to some extent it succeeds.
If I am going to make my point clear, I must ask hon. Members to look at Clause 78. Under Clause 78, to consti-


tute ripe land, it must be shown that the development values are wholly or mainly attributable to the prospects of development at the appointed day. Also it must be shown that a building contract has been made since 7th January, 1937, and is still in force, or that a bylaw submission has been made since that date. I draw the attention of the House to that. It also provides that a building application should have been made since then. The third condition which must be satisfied before land can come within Clause 78, and before the owner of land compulsorily acquired can receive the benefit of the Amendment from another place, is that planning permision for the development is granted under Part III of the Bill or is deemed to be so granted by Clause 75. In the Bill as it stands, it is Clause 76 but there is an Amendment on the Paper to alter it to Clause 75.
Probably, I can make my point more clear by putting an imaginary case to the House. Suppose there is a site in a town where the development is clearly attributable to the prospects of development on the appointed day. Suppose there is a cleared site which would have been built on but for the war, a site which was cleared for building before the war. That satisfies the first condition. Let me assume also that a building contract in relation to this site was made on 10th January, 1937, and is still in force. That satisfies the second condition. Suppose that this building contract was for building for industrial purposes, with the approval of the local planning authority, in an area zoned for industrial purposes. I think that in those circumstances the right hon. Gentleman would say that it really would be the intention that that land would come within Clause 78 and that where there was compulsory acquisition of that land it should come within the Amendments from another place, but it will not. It is only under Clause 78 that planning permission is given under this Bill.
1.45 p.m.
Following on my argument, let us suppose, that, because of the war, that particular site is now wanted for housing and that the local planning authority want to acquire it for housing purposes. They would then refuse planning permission for industrial purposes, and that would mean

that this land would not come within the terms of this Amendment made in another place. The second point one has to consider is that it could not come under this Amendment because planning permission would not be given now, although the use of the site for industrial purposes was with the approval of the local authority and in conformity with their plan in the past—because of the damage done by the enemy and the need for housing—because of the provision in Clause 78 that permission shall in certain circumstances be deemed to be given. That throws us back to Clause 75, and there one sees that permission will only be deemed to have been given where application has been made after 21st July, 1943, and before the appointed day under an interim development order.
May it not happen that a man, who satisfied all the other conditions, but did not, in war-time, apply for permission to develop since that date in 1943, who has got his building contract from January, 1937, who has his site cleared and whose plan is in conformity with the local authority's plan as it existed before the war, with the definite approval of the local authority, will now find that, because the land is now wanted for housing, and because he did not apply in wartime since that date in 1943, he will be deprived of the benefit of this Amendment? I cannot believe that that is really the intention of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government.
It is interesting to see that, under Clause 76, another criterion is imposed, in addition to the permission under the interim development order. Clause 76 provides for the carrying out of works in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, or in accordance with permission granted by or under an interim development order, and, in Clause 77, we find these words again:
in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he really is restricting the operation of this Amendment too narrowly by limiting it to a particular class of case where actual permission given under this Bill, or where permission has been given under an interim development order since 1943, and I suggest to him as strongly as I can that, if he wants, as I imagine he does, to do equity in this matter, he should insert


in this Amendment words to the effect that where, before 1943 the development was in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme, the other conditions, of course, being satisfied, the owner of the land might get the benefit of this Amendment.
So far as I can see, no reason has been given for differentiating between the owner who has applied since 1943, the other conditions being satisfied, and the owner who failed to do so. That really does not distinguish between what is and what is not dead ripe land. I hope I have made my point clear to the right hon. Gentleman. I might say to him straight away that I am not at all certain that the first and third Amendments now under discussion are really effective for carrying out the purpose which I have in mind, and I hope he will not, as I am sure he will not, take up any time in discussing the wording of these Amendments, but will merely deal with the serious point at issue.
The third point is dealt with by the second Amendment. In Clause 78, if it is amended by an Amendment which has come from another place, the local authority will have power to revoke permission for development granted under this Bill, and that means that, supposing we have—and this may happen, because the Minister cannot watch every local authority—supposing we have a local planning authority which has given permission under Clause 78 and then says to itself, "Well, we want this land for housing. We have given permission under Clause 78, and, because we have given that permission, it is dead ripe land, and, if we buy it now under this Clause, we shall have to pay a great deal more than we would pay if we revoked the permission." If these Amendments are carried, that can be done, and, that being so, it will be in the interests of local authorities to revoke permission in certain cases.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not like that action to be taken, but it may be very difficult to find out what are the real motives for the revocation of permission, and I suggest to him that, while the land may be ripe from the planning point of view, when revoking the permission, at the same time, from the compensation point of view, that revocation can have no effect, and that

is the purpose of the second Amendment. If the second Amendment is carried, it will provide that, while the local authority has power under the Clause to revoke permission, yet, at the same time, when the local authority does want to acquire that land, it will not gain any financial advantage by that revocation. It means that ripe land which comes within Clause 78 shall not cease to be ripe land by the mere fact that the local authority seeks to acquire it. I have put these two points as shortly as I can, and I hope I have made them clear to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Digby: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: I certainly will not take up time in criticising the wording, effective as it may be, of the Amendments, because the hon. and learned Gentleman made quite clear what it is that he seeks to achieve. I think that, to put it in a sentence, he wants to secure for owners of land coming within the category which he described the advantage of full compensation if their land is acquired for public purposes, rather than that they should be paid on the basis of the existing use value. I should like to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for having drawn attention to this point, I believe, during the Committee stage. It was a point of substance, and we have endeavoured to meet it. It was intended to apply to all land which was defined as dead ripe, and not to any other.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I am not seeking to apply it to any other.

Mr. Silkin: Well, we are on common ground there. The particular instances which the hon. and learned Gentleman gave, and the cases that would fall under his Amendments, are cases which do not come within the dead ripe provision. They are not cases of dead ripe land, and, therefore, they do not qualify for the full compensation, which is the reason for his Amendment. In other words, in a sense, the hon. and learned Gentleman is really seeking to extend the definition of dead ripe land laid down in Clause 78.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman? He said these are not cases of dead ripe land. In any instances which I gave, I was


seeking to give the case of land which was, in a colloquial sense, as dead ripe as possible—cases where land was dead ripe for development and would have been built upon, where there was a building contract in January, 1937, and where planning permission had been given, but where there was no consent under an interim development order and no consent under this Bill, because the land was now wanted for another purpose.

Mr. Silkin: Yes, I think I quite understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying, but the fact remains that the particular case to which I was referring does not come within the confines of Clause 78. It is a case that comes outside that Clause. What the hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to do is to give the benefit of the Lords Amendment to Clause 78 to this type of case which goes outside it, and to the other types to which he referred in his further Amendment, and I am saying that that is really equivalent to extending the definition of dead ripe land. It would be unthinkable to treat this land as dead ripe for the purpose of compulsory acquisition and not to treat it as dead ripe for the purposes of dealing with Parts VI and VII. Therefore, indirectly, it is seeking to widen the definition of dead ripe land, and that I am unable to do. The definition which we have in the Bill has been carefully worked out, and I think it covers all proper cases, and that other cases will qualify for a share of the £300 million.

Mr. Molson: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, may I ask him a question? I am surprised at the argument which the Minister is using. If I have followed the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, it is that, owing to the actual wording of this Amendment, certain land, which will be excluded from this benefit, cannot logically be differentiated from land which is going to gain that benefit, and, therefore, while the Minister is right in a purely technical sense, of course, this Amendment is going rather too wide in the definition of dead ripe land. Would the Minister address his argument to what I think is the point of my hon. and learned Friend—that we cannot fairly draw a distinction and say that land is dead ripe because the permission to develop has been given under subsequent legislation, and to exclude from the defini-

tion of dead ripe land cases where the permission was given under earlier legislation?

2.0 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: It is simply that one has to draw the line somewhere, and that, in this case, the line has been drawn in Clause 78 of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that some date ought to be put in, as, otherwise, a consent obtained in 1930 would——

Mr. Molson: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is very important. The word "ripe," as applied to land, is derived from the analogy of fruit, and one can quite understand that a time limit has to be imposed, because all fruit will, ultimately, become ripe. But if fruit has become ripe, then, presumably, it does not cease to be ripe at some subsequent time. Surely, a great injustice is going to be done to owners of land where permission has been given on a previous occasion, but does not happen to have been given under this subsequent legislation. The argument is that land which was ripe in the past is going to be ripe in the future. This is land which has been ripe for some time past.

Mr. Silkin: One must make up one's mind as to the proper definition of "ripe," and, having done that, land which does not conform to that definition must be regarded as not ripe Land which was once ripe need not always conform to that definition. In the case of land, in respect of which a consent to develop was obtained many years ago, and, which, in fact, has not been developed—and ex hypothesi, nothing will have happened to that land—it does not follow that such land is necessarily dead ripe for the purpose of Clause 78. Before it becomes dead ripe something must have been done to the land to make it dead ripe, and if the necessary requirements have not been complied with it will not be dead ripe. I do not think I can put it higher than that. A recent planning consent is all right, but a consent obtained a long time ago is not.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a recent planning consent. Supposing that land was cleared at the outbreak of war and that the owners wanted to resume building on that land, which was stopped by the war, and that then, in conformity


with a planning scheme, it was zoned for industrial purposes, would the right hon. Gentleman consider that as a recent consent? If he did, he would have to amend this Lords Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. and learned Gentleman means that a consent had been obtained, and not merely that the land was zoned, "Yes."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: In 1939?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, a consent obtained in 1939.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With the leave of the House, I would say that is just my point. A consent obtained in 1939 would not bring that land within this Amendment, because it could not be brought within it unless planning permission is given under this Bill.

Mr. Silkin: There is no reason why planning consent should not be given under this Bill if the land is properly zoned. After all, land is not ripe for development if the development proposed is inappropriate. It cannot be ripe for development if the developer wants to do something which is wrong, and, therefore, he would get no consent. I now come to the next Amendment, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman realises the dilemma he is in. He has assumed that when such a person applies for consent, the local authority is dishonestly going to refuse him.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I did not suggest that there would be any dishonest refusal. I said that, because of war conditions, the purpose of the site required might well have altered, and that the effect of the alteration of the purpose would mean that ripe land which was, ex hypothesi, completely ripe in 1939, and until the end of the war, is automatically made not ripe.

Mr. Silkin: I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had said at one stage of his argument that a local authority might revoke a consent in order to save compensation. I should say, if that were; done, it was dishonest, and so would the hon. and learned Gentleman. We are dealing with land as it is today, and not as it was in 1939. Is it ripe today? It cannot be ripe today if the development which is proposed is

development which is not appropriate, or which would not be permitted by the local authority. But, in the normal case, where a person acquired land in 1939, and got a valid consent in 1939, and the development which he proposes to carry out is appropriate today, he will get his consent from the local authority for that development. If he fails to get it, he has the right of appeal to the Minister, who will, in proper cases, allow the appeal. Therefore, the only hardship which the hon. and learned Gentleman visualises is in the case where there is a planning refusal. I say that, in that case, the owner has not discharged the onus on him to establish that his land is dead ripe. It cannot be dead ripe if he is unable to carry out the development he wishes to carry out.
On the question of revocation of consent, I take it that comes under Clause 20 of the Bill, which provides for compensation. In proper cases, the owner will be compensated. Indeed, the provision of compensation has been considerably widened, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Compensation is now being paid for all consequential loss flowing from the revocation—a plea which he himself made during the Committee stage of the Bill—and, therefore, that should go a very long way, if not the whole way, towards meeting any loss flowing from the actual revocation itself.

Mr. Manningham- Buller: Under Clause 58, as it is going to be amended, the Minister will get power to revoke. It will not be under Clause 20. Will that carry the same right for compensation?

Mr. Silkin: It will carry the same right for compensation. On the main question, I very much regret that it would, in effect, be widening the definition of "dead ripe" land, and I do not feel that it is possible to go further in that respect than we have already done.

Mr. Molson: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to say exactly under which Subsection compensation would be payable in the case of revocation to which he refers? I was just looking for it, and I should like to be assured about it before we proceed further.

Mr. Silkin: I had rather assumed that revocation, whether by a Minister or by


a local authority, of planning consent, would carry compensation. I do not imagine that there could be any difference, in principle, between the two, but I will let the hon. Gentleman know who is the exact authority for dealing with compensation.

Mr. Molson: The right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he stands by the principle. If revocation would deprive the owner, would he regard that as being a matter in which compensation ought to be paid?

Mr. Silkin: If it is compensation which, if carried out by a local authority, would have entitled the owner to compensation, then I see no reason at all why, if it is done by a Minister, he should not equally get compensation. I assumed that was the case, but if it is not, and if there is still time, as I believe there is, I will look into the matter.

Mr. C. Williams: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his last remarks, but I think that when we are dealing with what is almost the most vital provision in this Bill, that is to say the provision defining when land is dead ripe, we should have a rather clearer understanding of what the actual words mean than we have at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman defined "ripe" land as land ripe for the proper type of building, and as ripe in the opinion of his Department, or the local authority. That is as I understood him, and he will contradict me if I am wrong. Yet there might be land which, in 1939, was ripe for building, but because the local authority, or his Department, considered it was not ripe now for the proper kind of development, it can be claimed that it is not ripe at all. Surely, that is a rather arbitrary procedure.
Let me give a case in point. Suppose that the owners of a river bank in 1939 thought it ripe at a certain time to put in a dock and harbour, if, at the present time, the same people thought some development was proper, the powers that be can come along and say, "This land is not ripe. We think it should be used for piers and jetties, and we are not going to allow it to be used for a dock as well. If you want to use it in this way, we shall

declare that it is not ripe." That seems to me to be placing an extremely arbitrary power in the hands of the Minister. It means that whatever a person may think he can do by way of development, the Minister has merely to say that the land is not ripe, and that he wants it for some other purpose, and he can stand continuously in the way of development. It seems to me that is the only possible interpretation that can be placed on the matter from the remarks made by the Minister earlier in the Debate. I say, quite frankly, that it makes one all the more sorry that this Bill was not properly worked out in the first place.

Mr. Silkin: The short answer is that it is not for the local authorities to determine whether land is dead ripe or not. The hon. Gentleman is assuming that local authorities will carry out their functions dishonestly, and will revoke consents—that is the supposition behind what he says—already given, in order to save their ratepayers, from paying compensation. I can only say that, on that assumption, the whole Bill might make nonsense. If everyone is going to act dishonestly, and give consents or allow appeals on the basis of whether compensation becomes payable or not, all the safeguards in the world are of no value. I hope we are all assuming that everyone will act in good faith, and that local authorities will not improperly revoke consents which they have given, merely to prevent the payment of compensation.

2.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: I did not say that I thought local authorities would do that: I merely said that it was possible.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I hope my hon. Friends on this side of the House will carry this matter to a Division. It is essential that we should protest against the activities of the Government in this respect. There has been considerable argument, and a number of points have been raised. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman refuses to accept this Amendment which is designed to deal with the case where revocation takes place, because elsewhere in the Bill there is provision for compensation for such revocation. I have been studying the Bill to see how far that provision goes, and it is quite clear that the only power of compensation in those circumstances is in


Clause 21 which, in effect, only gives power of compensation for abortive expenditure and matters of that kind. Where there is revocation, the result of which would be to deprive the owner of the land in question of fair compensation, which he would get if the land were treated as dead ripe, as it should be treated, the owner will be very seriously damnified by the refusal of the Government to accept

this Amendment. That is an intolerable state of affairs, and I, for one, will be willing to go into the Lobby to register my vote in favour of the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Lords Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 65; Noes, 282.

Division No. 348.]
AYES.
2.18 p.m.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Raikes, H V.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Grimston, R. V
Rayner, Brig R.


Beamish, Maj. T V H
Headlam, Lieut.-Col Rt. Hon. Sir C
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bennett, Sir P
Lambert, Hon. G.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Carson, E
Low, Brig. A. R W.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Challen, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Clarke, Col. R. S
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Teeling, William


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Vane, W. M F.


Crowder, Capt, John E
Marples, A. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Digby, S. W.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Ward, Hon G. R.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Mellor, Sir J
Watt, Sir G S. Harvie


Dower, Lt. -Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Molson, A H E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Morrison, Rt Hon W S (C'nc'ster)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Drayson, G B
Noble, Comdr A. H P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Orr-Ewing, I. L



Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Pitman, I J
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fraser, H C P. (Stone)
Ponsonby Col. C E
Mr. Drewe and Lt.-Col. Thorp.


Gage, C.
Pools, O B. S. (Oswestry)





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Chamberlain, R. A
Gaitskell, H. T N


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Champion, A. J
Gallacher, W.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Chater, D.
Ganley, Mrs. C S


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, G. R
Gilzean, A


Alpass, J. H.
Cocks, F. S.
Glanville, J. E (Consett)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Coldrick, W.
Goodrich, H E


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Col lick, P.
Gordon,-Walker, P. C


Attewell, H. C.
Collindridge, F
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)


Austin, H. Lewis
Collins, V. J.
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)


Awbery, S. S
Colman, Miss G. M
Grenfell, D. R


Ayles, W H
Corvedale, Viscount
Grey, C. F


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Cove, W. G.
Grierson, E.


Baird, J.
Crawley, A
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Balfour, A.
Daines, P
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Barstow, P. G
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Gunter, R. J


Barton, C.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Guy, W. H.


Battley, J. R
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Haire, John E (Wycombe)


Bechervaise, A E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hale, Leslie


Benson, G.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hall, W. G


Berry, H.
Deer, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R


Beswick, F.
Diamond, J
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Dodds, N. N.
Harrison, J.


Bing, G. H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Blackburn, A. R.
Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Haworth, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Blyton, W. R
Durbin, L. F. M
Herbison, Miss M


Boardman, H.
Dye, S.
Hicks G.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C
Hobson, C. R


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Edelman, M.
Holman, P.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
House, G.


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Edwards, W J. (Whitechapel)
Hoy, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hubbard, T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Brown, George (Belper)
Ewart, R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fernyhough, E
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bruce, Major D. W T
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Burden, T. W
Foot, M. M.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Burke, W. A.
Forman, J. C
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Butler, H. W (Hackney, S.)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Irving, W. J.


Byers, Frank
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon G. A


Castle, Mrs B. A
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Janner, B.




Jay, D. P. T.
Nally, W
Sparks, J A.


Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Naylor, T. E
Stephen, C.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. C. (Shipley)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Stubbs, A. E.


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Swingler, S.


Keenan, W.
Oliver, G. H.
Sylvester, G O.


Kendall, W. D
Paget, R. T.
Symonds, A. L.


Kenyon, C.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Key, C. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


King, E. M
Palmer, A. M. F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Kinley, J.
Pargiter, G. A
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Kirby, B. V.
Parker, J,
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Layers, S.
Parkin, B. T.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Pearson, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Leonard, W.
Piratin, P
Thomson, Rt. Hn G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Leslie, J. R.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lever, N. H.
Popplewell, E.
Tiffany, S.


Levy, B. W.
Porter, E. (Warringtn)
Tolley, L.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Lindgren, G. S.
Proctor, W. T
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Lipson, D. L.
Pryde, D. J.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Viant, S. P.


Longden, F.
Ranger, J.
Wadsworth, G.


Lyne, A. W
Rankin, J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


McAdam, W.
Rees-Williams, D. R
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


McAllister, G.
Reeves, J.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


McEntee, V. La T.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


McGhee, H. G
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mack, J. D.
Robens, A.
West, D. G.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


McLeavy, F.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rogers, G. H. R.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wilkes, L.


Mallalieu, J. P. W
Scollan, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mann, Mrs. J
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Sharp, Granville
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Mathers, G.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Mayhew, C. P.
Shurmer, P.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Medland, H. M
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Mellish, R. J
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Messer, F.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wise, Major F J


Middleton, Mrs. L
Skeffington, A. M.
Woods, G. S


Mitchison, G. R
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Yates, V. F.


Monslow, W.
Skinnard, F. W.
Young, Sir R- (Newton)


Moody, A. S
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Morley, R.
Smith, S. H (Hull, S. W.)
Zilliacus, K


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Snow, Capt. J W



Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Solley, L. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Sorensen, R W. Soskice,
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Moyle, A
Sorensen, R W.
Mr. Simmons.


Murray, J. D.




Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment: In page 58, line 12, at end, insert:
or would have been so payable if that permission had not been revoked."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in page 58, line 12, at the end, to insert:
or would have been payable if the planning permission granted since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, had been granted under Part III of this Act.
We have already had some discussion on this Amendment, and therefore, I will not detain the House any longer.

Mr. Silkin: As the right hon. Gentleman has said, we have had a long discussion embracing this Amendment, and, for the

reasons which I have already given, I hope the House will not accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Lords Amendment: In page 63, line 30, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE D.—(Special provisions as to war-damaged land where compensation assessed by reference to cost of equivalent reinstatement.)

.—(1) Where an interest in land which is compulsorily acquired in pursuance of a notice to treat served after the passing of this Act is an interest in a hereditament or part of a hereditament which has sustained war damage, any of which has not been made good at the date of the notice to treat, then if—

(a) the appropriate payment under the War Damage Act, 1943, would, apart from


the compulsory acquisition or apart from any direction given by the Treasury under paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of section twenty of that Act, be a payment of cost of works; and
(b) the land would, but for the occurrence of the war damage, be devoted to any such purpose as is mentioned in Rule (5) of the rules set out in section two of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.

the provisions of the said Rule (5) shall have effect for the purposes of the assessment of compensation payable in respect of the compulsory acquisition as if the land were so devoted as aforesaid.

(2) Where any such interest in land as is mentioned in the foregoing subsection is compulsorily acquired as therein mentioned, then if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of that subsection are satisfied, and the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition falls (whether by virtue of that subsection or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the reasonable cost of equivalent reinstatement shall be ascertained for the purposes of the said Rule (5) by reference to the state of the land immediately before the occurrence of the war damage, and the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest which is compulsorily acquired (including interest thereon) shall, notwithstanding anything in that Act, vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.

(3) Where any such interest in land as aforesaid is acquired by agreement in pursuance of a contract made after the passing of this Act by a person authorised by virtue of any enactment to acquire it compulsorily, then if the conditions specified in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section are satisfied in relation to the land, and the compensation which would be payable in respect of the acquisition, if the acquisition were compulsory, would fall (whether by virtue of the said subsection (1) or otherwise) to be assessed in accordance with the said Rule (5), the right to receive any value payment or share of a value payment which, under the War Damage Act, 1943, is payable in respect of the interest acquired (including interest thereon) shall vest in the person by whom the interest is so acquired.

(4) Subsection (4) of section sixty-nine of the War Damage Act, 1943 (which makes special provision with respect to payments under that Act in respect of war damage sustained by hereditaments held for charitable purposes) shall not apply to any payment which by virtue of this section vests in the person by whom an interest in land is acquired.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

2.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Could we have some explanation of this new Clause and of the effect of it?

Mr. C. Williams: I think I fairly well understand the effects of the new Clause, but I should like to press the Government to explain it, and I should like to ask one or two questions about its pedigree. Can we be told how it was that this obvious piece of justice, dealing with compensation for war damage, was left out of the original Bill? I have had, and some others of us have had, considerable sections of war damaged property in our divisions, and it does seem rather negligent that this provision was not inserted earlier; that is why I should like to ask that first question. The second question is, Who thought of this new Clause? Was it the Government? Was it the Opposition? Was it thought of in another place? Or did it descend from Heaven? I think an Amendment of this kind is one many of us can welcome as being an improvement to the Bill, but I think we ought to have the privilege of knowing, when we are asked about it, to whom we have to give the credit for it. I have a lot of war damaged property in my constituency, which may benefit by this. Other hon. Members may be in the same position. I want to know what I am to say about it, and whether I can give the credit to the Minister or not. I should not like to give the credit to the wrong people.

Mr. Silkin: I think that when the hon. Gentleman is asked in his constituency, he can give the credit to the Minister This particular Clause deals with war damaged property which is to be compulsorily acquired, and which comes within a special category. It is the case of such kinds of property as schools, churches, etc., which come within Rule 5 of Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919. In those cases, when a local authority is acquiring land—war damaged land—it would not be appropriate to pay a market value: there is no market value for churches, schools or colleges. The new Clause provides that in that case they should pay reinstatement, as if the property had been undamaged.

Mr. Williams: May I ask one other question on that? Why was it left out of the original Bill?

Mr. Silkin: Because at that time, when the Bill was introduced and subsequently, there was a good deal of discussion and consideration about the War Damage Act: and the hon. Gentleman may remember


that the War Damage Commission were asked to make certain recommendations. This Amendment flows from those recommendations.

CLAUSE 67.—(Determination of development charge by Central Land Board.)

Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 12, at end, insert:
and shall provide that the amount of the said charge shall having regard to the terms and conditions on and subject to which planning permission has been granted be determined without any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to one applicant over another.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment to meet a case which was put forward on the Committee stage by hon. Gentlemen opposite to the effect that there should be no undue preference by the Central Land Board to particular individuals. As the Amendment stands, it is made contingent upon the making of regulations for the conduct of the Central Land Board, and it provides that, if regulations are made, then such regulations shall contain a provision that the Central Land Board shall show no preference. It is felt—and I am sure that the House will feel with me—that if we are to have such a provision at all, it ought not to be contingent upon the making of regulations, but that it ought to be stated fairly and squarely in the Bill itself. The purpose, therefore, is to disagree with the Lords merely for the purpose of putting the same thing in a subsequent Amendment to be moved in lieu of the Lords Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I find myself in the curious position of agreeing to disagree on this occasion. I think that the draft to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman carries, out in a more convenient manner, the purpose which, no doubt, their Lordships had in mind.

Mr. Molson: I am sure that hon. Members on this side of the House will be glad that the Government have, at last, agreed to insert in the Bill the general principle of equity for which we contended upstairs. I confess I am a little bit surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman is altering the actual draft of the Amendment that was carried in their Lordships' House. I note that the Lord Chancellor, the senior

Law Officer of the Crown, paid a tribute to the ingenuity of the noble Lord who had secured a draft that had exceeded the ingenuity of himself and his advisers. However, the Government have now tried their ingenuity once more, and I welcome the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is to move to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the Amendment which he is to move, because it does seem to me that he has climbed down from his usual pedestal of self-righteousness and accepted the common fairness point of view, which is, and has been throughout this Bill, that of the Opposition. I am a little concerned about the technical legal position. Apparently, one of the Law Officers of one place thinks it is right and in another place another Law Officer says something else is better. Perhaps, we shall have a new Lord Chancellor before long. I congratulate the Government on following the Opposition with such wisdom

Amendment made in lieu of the Lords Amendment last disagreed to: In page 76, line 47, at end, insert:
and shall not give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to one applicant over another."—[Mr. Silkin]

Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 22, at end, insert:
(5) Any person aggrieved by any assessment or determination of the amount of a development charge may appeal to a Tribunal consisting of a member or members of the panel constituted under Part I of the Schedule to the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, selected in accordance with the provisions of Part II of that Schedule, and the provisions of Part III of that Schedule shall in so far as they relate to appeals to a Tribunal have effect in relation to appeals under this Act as if for any reference to the War Damage Commission there were substituted a reference to the Central Land Board and as if for any reference to the War Damage Act, 1943, there were substituted a reference to this Act and the Lord Chancellor shall make rules for regulating, subject to the provisions of that Schedule, appeals to a tribunal under this Act.
(6) For the purposes of an appeal under the last foregoing Subsection of the Central Land Board shall at the request of the appellant or of the Tribunal furnish to the appellant and to the Tribunal a statement setting out the particulars of the grounds upon which the development charge was determined by them, together with any facts and contentions relevant thereto.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The effect of the Amendment is to enable a developer upon whom a development charge is being served to appeal to the tribunal set up under the War Damage (Valuation Appeals) Act, 1945, against that determination. This was a matter which received a good deal of discussion, and there is very little now that I can add to what has already been said as to the reasons why I think that an appeal is inappropriate in a case of this kind. I will summarise them, without going into them at any length. I think, first, it misconceives the relationship between the Central Land Board and the developer. The Central Land Board are the agents for the Government, and in whom, virtually, the development rights are vested. They are in a position analogous to that of the Crown Commissioners, who have land to sell or to lease which they are offering to the public, and they determine the price, or the development charge, in accordance with principles laid down in the Bill, and in accordance with regulations that will be made and approved by the House; and having done that they are in exactly the same position as a good landlord governed by the principles of good estate management combined with the public interest. Therefore, it seems to me inappropriate that there should be an appeal against a determination of that kind.
2.45 p.m.
Secondly, the Bill does give the Central Land Board a good deal of elasticity. I think hon. Members opposite have accepted that principle as a sound one; that is to say, that the Board should be able to have regard to special circumstances. The Bill gives the Central Land Board a good deal of discretion, and the trend of our discussions in Committee was that they ought to be given more discretion rather than less; that they ought not to be tied too much to the Minister. But the exercise of discretion cannot be regarded as a suitable juridical matter. It is very difficult to say to a person who has been entrusted with the right to exercise discretion that he has exercised it wrongly, or to substitute for that exercise of discretion some other exercise of discretion. Therefore, again I submit it is inappropriate to permit an appeal of that kind.
My third reason is that to have appeals against determinations of this kind might make the whole administrative machine unworkable. No doubt a great many determinations will be made, and if every owner, or a substantial percentage of owners even, went to appeal it might make the work of the Central Land Board impossible, because every appeal not only involves administrative work, but takes up the time of that very scarce body of men, the valuers. The valuer would have to be taken off his work of making determinations on behalf of the Board, and put on to the preparation of cases of appeal, which would very much tend to slow down the work of the Board itself. One of the criticisms which has been made about the development charge is that it will slow down development. But to permit of appeals would tend to slow down development very much more, because valuers would be taken off their normal work and put on to the work of preparing and attending these appeals.
We have gone a very long way towards ensuring that the Central Land Board does not act arbitrarily, and does not make a determination which the owner has to take or leave. The Central Land Board will give the owner or his agent information to enable him to see for himself how the determination has been made, and on what basis. The Board will be willing—in fact, they will be required—to discuss with the representative of the developer the basis upon which the charge has been assessed, the agent knowing in advance what that basis, is, and there will be discussions as between one valuer and another. I believe that is a much more effective and satisfactory method, even from the point of view of the developer, than the right of appeal to an arbitrator. I am satisfied that with this safeguard, with a full disclosure of the basis of the charge, with the register which will be made public, and with the right of discussion and negotiation between the parties, no injustice will be done, and the proposed developer will have the fullest opportunity of making his case known to the Central Land Board.
There is only one other thing I should like to say, and that is that the Central Land Board, like every other body, will naturally and necessarily want to make a succcess of their functions. It may be said that the measure of their success will


be the amount of development charge which they can level. I can assure the House that that will not be the case. The measure of their success will be the amount of development that takes place, and the Central Land Board will be told in no uncertain terms, and left in no uncertainty, that development is required much more than development charge. Moreover, there is, of course, a limit to the amount of development charge which they can extract, because if they go beyond a certain amount they are deterring development rather than encouraging it. They will very readily ascertain, if they have not already done so, that the kind of development charge they are levying is calculated to have the opposite effect from that which they are required to secure. For all these reasons, I feel that it would be wrong and inappropriate and not in the best public interest, to set up the tribunal which is contained in the Amendment sent from another place. Therefore, with very great regret, I invite the House to disagree with the Lords in that Amendment.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The Minister has moved the rejection of this Amendment, and in doing so the main burden of his remarks has been that an appeal in a case such as this would be inappropriate. He has told us that the Amendment is based on a misconception of the relationship between the Central Land Board and the developer. He went on to say that the relationship which would, in fact, exist would be such a relationship as that between the Crown Commissioners and the purchasers of land from them. Of course, the fact is that that argument is sheer nonsense. The Crown Commissioners are, in no sense of the word, monopoly owners, either of the whole of the land or of any complete set of rights in land. They are merely one landlord among a large number of landlords in this country. If we were here setting up a body to control a limited amount of land, or a limited right in land, it might well be that the machinery of appeal would be quite unnecessary. The reason why, during the passage of this Bill through this House, we pressed for a right of appeal was because the Central Land Board are to be a complete monopoly. That is the reason we support this Amendment today; indeed, it is really the only reason.
In another place the Lord Chancellor objected to this Amendment—which was there carried against the Government—on what he described as grounds of principle. I am bound to say I find it very difficult indeed to see what grounds of principle can possibly be adduced against giving the subject some right of appeal, or someone to whom he can go to decide whether or not he is getting fair treatment, when he is being confronted with a monopoly institution which has complete power in the field over which it can operate to deal with him exactly as they please.
I am very glad that we have an opportunity of discussing this Amendment today, because owing to the operation of the Guillotine when the Bill went through this House, I think I am right in saying that this main question of principle—and it is perhaps the largest question of principle which arises in the Bill—was never brought to an issue, either in Standing Committee or on the Floor of the House. It was discussed, of course, in relation to other Amendments, and it was discussed during Second and Third Readings, but I think I am right in saying that the House has had no opportunity of deciding this particular question, standing by itself, in the course of our discussions so far. Therefore, it is essential that we should give it very full consideration at the present time.
I cannot help feeling that the country at large—it is certainly my experience from discussing this matter outside the House—is wholly unaware of the effect of this Bill, and of what the powers of the Central Land Board will be under the Bill. Abstruse terms such as "development charge" and "development value" are used, and people tend to shy off those terms, and to think that this is a technical matter which does not affect them in the least. I am quite certain that the country does not yet realise that this Bill sets up a complete monopoly in the right to buy land for development; that, from the time this Bill becomes effective, anyone wishing to do on land anything which has not been done on that land before will not only have to get planning permission, but "will have to pay to the Central Land Board precisely what that Board like to demand from him. If a man wishes to start up in business in a shop which has been used for some other business than that which he wishes to conduct,


it will be possible for the Board to demand any sum of money they think fit For example, the Central Land Board will be within their legal rights in demanding £100,000 from a small greengrocer if he wishes to set up in business in a shop where previously a shoemaker had been carrying on his trade. That is what this Bill does.
Of course, I am not suggesting that it will be exercised in that way; but I suggest that before such powers are given to an organ of the executive, something should be done to ensure some right of appeal, so that the citizen who complains that his personal rights have been injured can go somewhere and ventilate his objection. It is true that the Central Land Board are directed by the Bill, as it now stands, after considerable amendment, to comply with certain injunctions regarding the assessment of the charge in particular cases. In the first place, the Board are to have regard to the increase in value of the land which it is proposed to develop. They are merely to have regard to that. When the Bill begins to operate it will not be very difficult for the Central Land Board to be able to assess fairly accurately what such increases may be. But this is a Bill which it is intended will operate not for a year or two, but for all time. When this monopolistic Board has been operating for a number of years they will themselves, by demanding a high or a low price, be able to regulate the increase in value of any particular form of development. To begin with there will be some yardstick, but as time goes on that yardstick will cease to be effective, because it can be altered by the policy of the Board itself.
3.0 p.m.
The Central Land Board are now directed to give "no undue preference," as a result of the Amendment we have passed, and are also to comply with certain regulations, which are to be made by the Minister, in carrying out their duties. My own view is that these are pretty poor and pretty thin safeguards, so far as the subject is concerned. I do not believe they will amount to anything, when it is a question of a subject acquiring development rights from the Central Land Board. If we take the Government at their word, and assume that these safeguards are binding on the Board, is it not the strongest possible argument to say that

there should be some right of appeal to ensure that they are operating in the subject's favour?
At the moment the Board are given these more or less vague directions, but there is no sanction to ensure that they are carried out, and, whatever the charge the Board may make, the subject will have either to accept or refuse. The subject will have no right of appeal, because nothing of the kind is provided for in the Bill. I submit that if the Government's intentions are to be properly carried out, and this Board are to be guided by general rales or regulations, that is the best possible reason for giving a right of appeal, so that if the subject says that undue preference has been exercised, or that the regulations have not been properly complied with, he will have some redress. In these circumstances, I hope that this matter will go to a Division, and that we shall protest against what I regard to be a piece of tyrannical legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I wish to say a word or two in support of what has been said by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), which, among all who have considered this question, must have struck a note of reason. The Minister said that one of the reasons why he could not accept this proposal was that there would be no time if extensive appeals were made. That reason could apply to almost every other case which could be put forward. For instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer could well say that we cannot have appeals against Income Tax assessments, because if every taxpayer appealed against his assessment, it would be impossible to carry on. It is really not an argument at all, and I cannot believe that there would be this vast number of appeals.
I do not wish to impute that the Board will act in any immoral way, but if the Board know there is a right of appeal, there will be a better check to make them carry out their duties in the interests of all concerned, than would be the case if they knew they had complete arbitrary powers. The hon. Member for South Hendon gave a case which sounds ridiculous. He said that £100,000 could be charged on one shop. Is that so, or is it not? I do not believe


it will ever happen, but the question remains whether the Board should have that power without there being a right of appeal.
The right hon. Gentleman said the regulations would provide that the Board should consider developments and not the development charges. That is a really valuable statement, but there is nothing in the Bill to that effect, and nothing on record, other than what appears in HANSARD. Is it not possible to have that valuable statement incorporated in the Bill, so that it can be recognised by the authorities? Whenever HANSARD is produced as evidence to show the intentions of a Minister or of an Act, it is merely brushed aside. It is always said that Debates or arguments in the House should not be taken into consideration in interpreting an Act. Hon. Members opposite are anxious to give great and sweeping powers to boards, executives and officials. That is their policy, but I wonder whether they really want to set up all these boards without having some kind of appeal. They would get their policy accepted by a far greater number of people in the country in that way, than would be the case if there is no check against these unlimited powers.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The Minister, in asking the House to reject the Lords Amendment, advanced three reasons, with which I should like to deal quite briefly. He said that the Amendment suggested from another place misconceives the relations of the Central Land Board with the would-be developer of land. He then went on to talk about the position of the Central Land Board being analogous to that of a good estate landlord. When a good estate landlord is offering land for any particular kind of development, the would-be developer, if he is dissatisfied, can go elsewhere to buy land. There is hardly ever a condition where it is impossible for a man who wants to build a house, develop a small estate, or erect a factory to find the right kind of land upon which to carry out that development. The point was dealt with completely by my hon. Friend the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), when he pointed out that the great difference in the Central Land Board was that it was a monopoly owner. It will be in a position to dictate the terms and

the developer, if he is dissatisfied with the development charge, will not be able to go elsewhere, because he will be dealing with the one and only landlord. The second point he made was that under the Bill and, presumably, under the regulations, about which we do not know, the Central Land Board will be allowed a great deal of elasticity. By that, I understand the Minister to mean that if the developer meets the representatives of the Board, and advances certain reasons why, in his view, the determination of the development charge is too high, they will be able to say to him, "We put in that figure because, in our view, certain circumstances arise, but we are inclined to agree with what you say, and think that we can reduce the figure." That must be what the Minister meant by "elasticity." They can put the charge up or down in accordance with the circumstances in each case. But that is no reason why there should not be an appeal on the part of the developer if he is dissatisfied. It is an additional reason why an appeal is desirable. If the would-be developer is dissatisfied with the determination, and if he had the right of appeal, it would be open to the representatives of the Central Land Board, just as it would be open to him, to appear before the tribunal, and say why the charge was fixed as it was. So I see nothing in the second argument of the Minister which is valid in his attempt to disparage and discredit the need for an appeal tribunal.
The third and final reason which the right hon. Gentleman advanced against it was that the whole administrative machinery might break down. That is an extraordinary admission for the designer of that machinery to make; it is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman should say that the machinery will be under such stress, that valuers will be so exercised, that the danger of an appeal here and there will upset the whole thing. It is an extraordinary condemnation of the administrative machinery which the Minister himself has created. I think it possible that the administrative machinery may break down; I have never hidden my view that there is a great danger that even without an appeals tribunal, that machinery may break down—there are not enough valuers in the country to deal with all the claims that will be made—but to say


that an occasional appeal here and there would cause the whole machinery to break down will not bear examination. It might be said, with equal force, that there is no need for the House of Commons to examine legislation, that it wastes a lot of time, and that it would be better to accept it as it is. I often think that that is the attitude of right hon. and hon. Members opposite.
The Minister said that the most desirable thing was safeguarded, that there should be frank discussion, that the officers of the Board will be able to meet would-be developers, and tell them the basis on which they have worked in assessing a development charge. The right hon. Gentleman said that that is much more important than an appeal. I do not dispute the desirability of conversations face to face. It is highly desirable that a man should be able to meet the assessors of the charge, say why he thinks it too high, and negotiate in exactly the same way as representatives of a deceased owner can negotiate at present with the district valuer of the Inland Revenue. That is the kind of thing we all want to see, but, in reserve, there must be the right of appeal. There is this right in the case of determination of Estate Duty.
The fact that the appeal is there will help people to feel that the machinery is fair. These things have a great psychological effect. If a man feels that he is faced with something against which he cannot appeal, he is inclined to believe that the State machinery which is being erected against him is a soulless and heartless robot. The man who feels that he is free, as a sovereign individual, likes to think that there is some court of appeal to which he can turn. I do not know whether we have the right tribunal in this case, but if the Minister does not like it—although he did not advance any reasons against it—let him accept the principle and suggest another kind of tribunal The fact remains, however, that we attach the greatest importance to the right of appeal.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: I do not wish to detain the House for long after the excellent speeches we have just heard from my hon. Friends on this matter, and also because the Minister said—and this is the only point on which I agree with him—that most of this ground

has been covered in earlier stages of the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) I was shocked and surprised at the Minister's denial of the possibility of an appeal because of the administrative inconvenience that would cause. I admit that he put it higher than administrative inconvenience. He said that there would be a danger, if appeal machinery was introduced, and multiplication of appeals followed—and they would not necessarily follow—that the whole scheme might become unworkable. As has been said, we do not dissent from the general principle that there will be great administrative and staff difficulties in putting the whole of the project of this Bill into operation. But we do say that these are things that must be taken into account-in the initial design of the project.
We pointed this out on the Second Reading, and the right course to take, if that fear is entertained, is generally to limit the objectives of the Bill, and not immediately to jettison the interests of natural justice and equity. I know that the Attorney-General does not care for the phrase, "natural justice," but I am sure he will agree that it applies in dealings between man and man, and more particularly in dealings between the citizen and what amounts to a monopolistic, bureaucratic, machine. I suggest that the interests of natural justice or equity are involved in this way, that an appeal is essential if either of two things apply: There is a substantial possibility of errors in determination of the charges, or, as between the two parties, one may be put in a position of unfair balance against the other or, indeed, placed in the position where he could exercise an arbitrary pressure.
In this case, I think it is clear that both these considerations apply, and, therefore, it is not enough to say that because it would be administratively' inconvenient there should be no appeal. The Minister has stated that, in any case, an appeal is not necessary, because the terms of the Amendment misconceived the relationship between the parties. With great respect, I think that the Minister, if he does not misconceive the relationship, is, at any rate, on this occasion rather misrepresenting it to the House. The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), in his most admirable speech, has


exposed the obvious fallacy of the comparison between the position of the Central Land Board and the Crown Estate Commissioners. He has exposed that fallacy, which was the example which the right hon. Gentleman took to point out that no appeal was necessary to guide the actions of the Central Land Board in these cases.
The suggestion is made, and was made in another place, that an appeal was not only unnecessary but unsuitable because this is a commercial transaction—the right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, repeated it this afternoon with his talk of the principles of good landlordship and the principles of good estate management—and, therefore, not a question which lends itself to the judicial decision of an appeal tribunal. But it is a tainted commerce, a commerce tainted with monopoly, and that at once puts it right outside the ordinary dealing which the Lord Chancellor suggested as the method by which these development charges could be discussed, regulated and agreed. He said that these things should be left to the higgling of the market, and it is a new doctrine that the new Socialism prefers the higgling of the market to the principles of natural equity. Even though in ordinary transactions one might feel there is a good deal to be said for the higgling of the market—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt——

Mr. Medland: I was wondering where the hon. Gentleman's argument is going to lead him?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, finds discretion the better part of valour.

Mr. Medland: The hon. Gentleman need not worry about that.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman wants to interrupt, I shall be ready to give way; otherwise it is a little distracting to have these sedentary squawks coming from the flanks. The hon. Member wants to know where the argument is leading It is that, although the principle of the higgling of the market may be an admirable one in ordinary deals between private parties in regard to land, it is not one that should apply here. This is very one-sided higgling with one party packing the punch of monopoly, and the other party driven into the corner and

having no elasticity of defensive manoeuvre through the lack of an alternative purchaser. That is where my argument is leading, and that is the point, as I see it, which makes an appeal necessary in the interest of justice as well as in the interest of good administration. The procedure of the higgling of the market was defended in another place on the grounds that it led to the principle of give and take; but it is much more likely to lead, so far as the Central Land Board is concerned, to the principle of take without very much give. It is because of this unequal relationship between the parties that we feel that the machinery of the appeal tribunal must be inserted in the Bill.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I should not have intervened after the speeches which we have heard, were it not for the very great importance of the issue involved, and I trust that in the course of my intervention I shall not repeat arguments that have already been adduced, because I feel sure they have been well stated; but there are some other considerations which have only been alluded to, if they have been alluded to at all. I am glad that the right hon. Gentlemen did not stress too much the argument about the administrative inconvenience, because I am sure that he realises that there are only a multitude of appeals where a multitude of people feel that they have been treated unjustly, and if there is a widespread feeling of that kind, it means that there is, in fact, a great deal of injustice; and any argument to the effect that there will be such a multitude of appeals as to be impossible to deal with, necessarily involves the admission that the whole basis of the development charge is unequitable.
Coming to the point which has been hardly mentioned at all—is there any check whatever if the Central Land Board make wrong decisions? Apart from questions of discretion, there are at least two matters which I think almost every one would agree ought to be subject to some kind of check. First, there is the Amendment which we have just inserted at the end of Subsection (2), that the Central Land Board are not to indulge in undue preferences. Who is to be the judge of that? Is the Central Land Board to have the final word as to whether or not there is an undue or unreasonable preference because, if that is so, then the Amend-


ment is completely meaningless and without any effect at all: of course they would never give a preference which they thought to be unreasonable. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman himself moved into the Bill is really of no avail unless there is some appeal.
I now come to the second point. Regulations will lay down principles of some kind or another, and they may be different principles in relation to operations or usages for different times and different classes. Quite obviously we shall have questions of law arising, and difficult questions of interpretation as to the exact meaning of these principles and which of them applies in a particular case where the border-line may be difficult to draw. Is there to be no appeal in these cases? Is the Central Land Board to be the final arbiter both as to the meaning and as to the execution of these regulations, because I can see nobody else who can determine what these things mean except this Board. I do not know how many lawyers the right hon. Gentleman intends to put on the Board, but when we come to legal questions, and we are bound to come to a good many over so elaborate a territory as this, surely there ought to be an opportunity of appeal.
3.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman has assimilated this matter with others to which it bears very little relationship. He said it was like a sale, but the Central Land Board will do two different things. In one of their activities, they act as a person buying land and selling it for the combined price of land and development charges; then they will act as sellers, and monopolistic sellers at that, and the reasonable arguments put forward with regard to monopoly sales will apply. But how can it be said that in any case there is anything at all resembling a purchase and a sale, when the owner of the land goes to the Board and asks how much he must pay in order to do certain operations on his own property. Purchase and sale surely must mean one thing—that a man has some opportunity of refusing and going elsewhere if he does not get what he wants.
I am bound to say that one of the effects of denying an appeal seems to be that there will be people who will be aggrieved and will feel that they have

been charged more than a just sum and more than the premises are worth. I take it the same applies in the English Bill as in the Scottish Bill, that if not satisfied, a person will be able to stop his development project and will not be charged if he never begins the work. If that is so and people feel that they are aggrieved and have no appeal, what will they do? A great many of them will say, "I will not develop the land at all if I cannot get justice. The land will stay as it is." Thus desirable development projects will be lost. No matter how well the Bill works and how many safeguards there are in it, one of the disastrous effects will be that it will seriously hamper the development of land in this country, and it will be infinitely worse if there is no appeal. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to think about this again from that particular angle.
It is said that this is a matter of discretion, but it is very limited discretion. We have just introduced one Amendment to make certain that no undue preference shall be admitted, and that all classes must be treated in the same way. To some-extent, that was implicit in the original Bill, because there are classes to be dealt with under the Regulations. I could see the Government saying that there should be no appeal if every case stood by itself and was a separate question of discretion, but when we get into classes as we obviously do here, it limits the scope for discretion very much. Discretion will have to be discretion in how to treat a class of case. When there is discretion of that kind it is necessary to have some method of clearing up the matter other than by the mere discretion of the Board itself. For all these reasons, as well as for those put forward by my hon. Friends, we cannot possibly rest content with the proposal submitted by the right hon. Gentleman and we will certainly make our protest in the Lobby.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Are we to have an answer on these points?

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I was hesitating a little as to whether to reply to the discussion that we have had because these matters have already been discussed very fully in Committee and in another place, and the reasons for rejecting this Amendment today are exactly the same as the reasons which were advanced for rejecting it when


first it was moved in the Committee upstairs. The speeches to which we have listened from hon. Members opposite—and I do not say this in any way offensively, for my own speech is open to exactly the same criticism—show quite conclusively that arguments do not gain any weight or strength from the mere fact that they are repeated time and time again. For that reason I hesitated a little and wondered if I would be serving any useful purpose by repeating again the arguments so clearly advanced before, and which commended themselves to the Committee upstairs.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not going to carry that argument too far. A good many of us were not in the Committee upstairs and we must assert the right of the House to have an answer to the arguments put forward here.

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman was here—and I do not know whether he was or not—when my right hon. Friend moved the rejection of this Amendment he would have heard the arguments which were adduced then.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: It is the answers to the arguments. I want to hear.

The Attorney-General: It does seem to me that this Amendment is based on a fundamental misapprehension in regard to the position and the functions of the Central Land Board. If, as some of the speeches by hon. Members opposite appear to suggest, that Board had a judicial or quasi-judicial function there might be something to be said, though not a great deal, in favour of an appeal, but that is not the position. The function of this Board is a far more utilitarian one. I do not mind the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) using the phrase—"natural justice." On the contrary, at times I think it is a very useful phrase. To use the language as used by noble Lords in the famous case of Arlidge against the Local Government Board, if anyone wants a high sounding phrase, the meaning of which is completely vacuous, that is a very useful phrase indeed, which is why hon. Members opposite are so excessively fond of it and why it is an unpopular phrase in the courts of this country.
The tribunal under this Bill is not entitled to exercise functions of a judicial or quasi-judicial character at all. This Board is selling, or a more analogous description would be leasing, on behalf of the State the development rights which it is the purpose of this Bill to convey and transfer to the State. The duty of the Board is to decide, not as a judicial body but as the owner of those rights preparing to lease them or to sell them, what amount in the public interest should be secured for the State by way of development charge, having regard perhaps to the desirability of encouraging development of a particular class in one area or having regard perhaps, on the contrary, to the desirability of discouraging development in a different area. That really is a function which could not possibly be discharged by an independent tribunal, having to deal ad hoc with each particular appeal which came before it.
What the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal have been saying only recently in a number of cases, where appeals have been directed to the courts against the administrative decisions of tribunals is that the courts simply have not got the information or the responsibility for deciding these questions of public interest, and it is for the board, under a general direction of the Minister, to decide, having regard to the public interest and looking at the picture as a whole, how it wants to promote the development of the whole estate, if I may put it in that way, and to decide in negotiation with each particular purchaser what is the proper price to charge to that purchaser if he wants to change the existing use of his land and develop it in some new way. It would be an absolute abdication of the function and responsibility of the Board to make these decisions matters that might be subject to reversal and appeal.

Mr. Molson: In the case of an individual who considers that an undue and unreasonable preference has been given to some other person in comparison with the treatment which he himself has received, under the Amendment does the Attorney-General say that there is no redress for such a man?

The Attorney-General: If and when that case arises, the High Court will have to decide whether it does not already possess powers on what is called the Crown


side to interfere by way of certiorari or prohibition with what would be an improper exercise by this Board of its jurisdiction. That, however, is a very different matter from saying that there shall be a right of appeal in every case.
As we see it, the position is fairly comparable with the case of a landlord who owns the whole of the available land. I agree that it is a monopoly and that is why I am saying that it is comparable with the case of a landlord who owns the whole of the available land, who has let it to a tenant for the purpose of continuing its existing user, and who is now asked by his tenant to grant a new lease for development purposes. It would be an entirely novel principle that where someone—whether it be the State, the Central Land Board as representing the State, or a private individual—has something to sell or lease in that way, which the purchaser is not compelled to purchase if the price charged is too high, he should have to submit the price to arbitration. That is essentially a matter for negotiation between the parties, and if the landowner having a monopoly asks too much by way of development charge, the development will not occur, the purchaser will not be willing to pay for the development rights, and the Board will suffer in the end.
That is the real, sufficient and obvious safeguard which will ensure that the Central Land Board is not likely to charge such prices as will discourage development in areas where it is desirable that development should take place. If one contemplates the ordinary case of a sale, the purchaser cannot say to the vendor, "I am going to buy your property, but I am not going to buy it at your price; somebody else is going to fix the price at which you will be compelled to sell it to me." What vendor would consent for a moment to an arrangement of that kind? And the fact that the vendor here is the State or the Central Land Board and enjoys a monopoly of the things which are to be sold is no reason why a third party, not knowing the full picture and being responsible for development of land throughout the country as a whole, should be entitled to come in in a kind of quasi-judicial capacity and fix the price to be paid in each particular case. For these reasons which, as I have said, are a repetition of

the reasons advanced before, we must reject this Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am sure that we are all very grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not think it is possible to say that the matter has been unduly delayed, and I certainly do not wish to delay the House in coming to a decision, but frankly the right hon. Gentleman has totally failed to give full weight to the element of monopoly which is coming in here. He is creating a synthetic duke who owns all the land in England. The Duke of Omnium was a joke compared to this duke. Hon Members will be familiar with a masterly passage in one of Chesterton's short stories which describes how a journalist who had fallen into a quarrel with the duke, some minutes afterwards left the duke's house and some hours afterwards left his land. Nobody will ever be able to leave this duke's land, and I think that for the sake of the Minister himself, and of the Bill, there should be some alternative to the process which he sees as a correct one—namely, that no development should take place at all. We are just as desirous as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that development of the land of England should take place, but we think that there should be some safety valve and that there should be some method such as we propose, without a total freeze-up in development, whereby anybody can tell whether it is legitimate or not. There should be some form of adjudication over and above the simple ipse dixit of the Central Land Board.
345 p.m.
I do not think that there is any possibility of reconciling the views held on the two sides of the House, but I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to admit that we on this side feel that a new and dangerous thing is being decided here. It is a thing which will slow up development, whereas our proposal is one which will expedite rather than arrest the development which both sides of the House desire. It is extremely dangerous to allow the process to work by simply saying that no development will take place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what purchaser would approach a vendor saying, "I propose to purchase your articles but not at the price at which you are willing to sell." We are very familiar with that in the modern economic world in which we live. Under the fixed price


system people continually approach vendors and say that they are willing to purchase rationed articles but not at the price they are willing to fix. If the thing goes wrong the article in question disappears under the counter or the process of purchasing ceases altogether.
In this case the only remedy that the right hon. Gentleman suggests for a bad determination by the Central Land Board of the value of a piece of land is that the whole of the development should be arrested, and there is, so to speak, a strike until it works. We feel that the machinery we suggest is a more expeditious way of dealing with the matter, and some appeal

from the Duke of Omnium ought to be devised, because the creation of this synthetic duke will be the worst piece of work ever done for the development of land in England, if he is allowed by the decision which we are about to take to establish himself as the landlord of all the land in England, from whom no appeal is possible and whose ipse dixit settles the value, now and forever, of every piece of land which any man is trying to develop for any purpose whatever.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 68.

Division No. 349.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Deer, G.
Jay, D. P. T.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Diamond, J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dodds, N. N.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Alpass, J. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Keenan, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Durbin, E. F. M.
Kenyon, C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Dye, S.
Key, C. W.


Attewell, H. C.
Edelman, M.
King, E. M.


Austin, H. Lewis
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kinley, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lavers, S.


Ayles, W. H
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Leslie, J. R.


Baird, J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lever, N. H.


Balfour, A.
Ewart, R.
Levy, B. W.


Barstow, P. G.
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Barton, C.
Field, Captain W. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Battley, J. R.
Foot, M. M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Bechervaise, A E.
Forman, J. C.
Longden, F.


Benson, G.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lyne, A. W.


Berry, H.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McAdam, W.


Beswick, F.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
McAllister, G.


Bing, G. H. C.
Gallacker, W.
McEntee, V. La T


Binns, J.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McGhee, H. G


Blackburn, A. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Mack, J. D.


Blenkinsop, A.
Gilzean, A.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Blyton, W. R
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Boardman, H.
Goodrich, H E
McLeavy, F.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Gordon,-Walker, P. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Grierson, E.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Bramall, E. A
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mann, Mrs. J


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Guest, Dr. L. Hadan
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Brown, George (Belper)
Gunter, R. J
Martin, J. H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Guy, W. H.
Mayhew, C. P.


Bruce, Major D. W. T
Hale, Leslie
Medland, H. M.


Burden, T. W.
Hall, W G.
Mellish, R. J.


Burke, W. A.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Messer, F.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Middleton, Mrs. L


Chamberlain, R. A.
Harrison, J.
Mitchison, G. R.


Champion, A. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Moody, A. S.


Chater, D.
Haworth, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morley, R.


Cobb, F. A.
Hicks, G.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Cocks, F. S.
Hobson, C. R.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Coldrick, W.
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.


Collick, P
House, G.
Nally, W.


Collins, V. J.
Hoy, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hubbard, T.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Corvedale, Viscount
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Cove, W. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Crawley, A.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Orbach, M.


Crossman, R. H. S
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Paget, R. T.


Daines, P.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Paling, Will T (Dewsbury)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irving, W. J.
Parker, J.


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Janner, B.
Parkin, B. T.




Paton, J. (Norwich)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Tiffany, S.


Pearson, A.
Simmons, C. J
Tolley, L.


Peart, Thomas F.
Skeffington, A. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Popplewell, E.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Porter, E (Warrington)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C)


Price, M. Philips
Snow, Capt. J. W
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Proctor, W. T
Solley, L. J.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Pryde, D. J.
Sorensen, R. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Ranger, J,
Sparks, J. A
Wilkes, L.


Rankin, J.
Stephen, C.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Rhodes, H.
Stubbs, A. E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Summerskill, Dr. Edith
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Robens, A.
Swingler, S.
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Symonds, A. L.
Willis, E.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wise, Major F. J.


Sargood, R.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Woods, G. S.


Scollan, T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wyatt, W.


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Yates, V. F.


Sharp, Granville
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Zilliacus K.


Shurmer, P.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thurtle, Ernest
Mr. Collindridge.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gage, C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Raikes, H. V.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Gammans, L. D.
Rayner, Brig. R,


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Grant, Lady
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bower, N.
Gridley, Sir A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Grimston, R. V.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Byers, Frank
Lipson, D. L.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Carson, E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Sutcliffe, H.


Challen, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Channon, H.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Touche, G. C.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Vane, W M. F.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wadsworth, G.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Molson, A H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Drayson, G B.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Drewe, C.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.



Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Major Conant and


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Lieut.-Colonel. Thorp


Lords Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 70.—(Variation of determinations and repayment of development charges in certain cases.)

Lords Amendments: In page 80, line I, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 81, and insert:
(2) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined under this Part of this Act in respect of any operations or in respect of any use of land, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged—

(a) planning permission for the carrying out of those operations or for the institution or continuance of that use is revoked by an order made under section twenty of this Act; or
(b) an order is made under section twenty-four of this Act requiring the removal of any buildings or works erected or constructed in carrying out those operations, or requiring the discontinuance of that use; or

(c) the whole of the land to which the determination relates is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act,

the determination, and any covenants or charges made or given in respect thereof, shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

(3) Where, after the amount of the development charge has been determined as aforesaid, and before the amount so determined has been fully discharged,—

(a) planning permission for the carrying out of the operations, or for the institution or continuance of the use, to which the determination relates, is modified by an order made under the said section twenty; or
(b) an order is made under the said section twenty-four requiring the alteration of any buildings or works erected or constructed in the carrying out of those operations, or imposing conditions on the continuance of that use; or


(c) any part of the land to which the determination relates is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act,

the Board shall, on application made to them in accordance with regulations under this Act, vary the determination and amend, discharge or release any covenants or charges made or given in respect thereof, so far as may be just in consequence of the modification, order or purchase, as the case may be.

(4) Where compensation is payable under Part III of this Act in consequence of any such order as mentioned in paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then in calculating for the purposes of the compensation any depreciation in the value of the land to which the order relates, or any other loss or damage sustained by a person interested in that land, regard shall be had to the foregoing provisions of this section and to anything done by the Board thereunder.

(5) Where compensation is payable under the said Part III in consequence of any such order as aforesaid, or where land is compulsorily acquired as mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) or subsection (3) of this section, then if any sums have been paid to the Central Land Board by way of development charge in accordance with the determination referred to in those subsections, the Board shall pay the authority or person by whom compensation is payable in consequence of the order or, as the case may be, in respect of the compulsory acquisition, a contribution towards that compensation representing such proportion of the sums so paid by way of development charge as may be agreed between the Board and that authority or person, or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Minister, to be appropriate in all the circumstances of the case.

(6) Subsection (3) of section twenty-one of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section, and shall accordingly have effect as if the reference therein to the foregoing provisions of that section included a reference to the foregoing provisions of this section; and any reference in this section to the compulsory acquisition of land shall be construed as including a reference to the acquisition of land by agreement by any authority or person who has power or can be authorised to acquire it compulsorily."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Before we pass from this Amendment we ought to have some statement from the right hon. Gentleman explaining how this very large Amendment comes about, and the purpose which it is intended to serve. The House will see that the effect of it is to strike out page 80 of the Bill and about one-third of page 81. I cannot recollect whether this is one of the Clauses which were not discussed in this House owing to the operation of the Guillotine; but

be that as it may, we are entitled to have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of this Amendment, and the changes it proposes to effect.
If I understand these provisions correctly—and I do not feel any confidence that I do—the effect will be that where a determination has been made and where planning permission is revoked, the outstanding amount of the development charge which has not been paid will no longer be levied. If that is the position, does it mean that there is a premium on the payment of the development charge by instalments? As I see the proposal, if planning permission is revoked for one reason or another, or the land in respect of which there is planning permission is compulsorily acquired, the outstanding liability for development charge can be washed out when nothing has been done, and the owner of the land who has paid his development charge will have a right of getting that matter taken into account in assessing the compensation.
I should like to be quite certain that not merely will it be taken into account, but that the amount paid for development charge by the person concerned, which is not effective because of the revocation, will, in one way or another, be refunded to him. It seems wrong that where a man has had a development charge levied upon him which he must pay before he commences the development, and when he has paid it but planning permission is refused owing to a change of circumstances, he is to be deprived of what he has paid. If it is not returned to him, he gets no benefit from the payment. All he is told is that the payment will be taken into account in assessing the compensation. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman—I may have misread the Clause—at least say that he will give an assurance that words will be put in somewhere in this Measure to make sure that, in those circumstances, the amount paid by the individual in the way of a development charge will be returned to him?

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: This is very largely a redrafting and a rearrangement and a considerable improvement. I believe, but I am not certain, that this is a Clause which was not discussed in Committee. On the specific point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, I cannot give an undertaking that the actual amount paid


by way of development charge will be refunded as such, in the case of revocation whenever the revocation may lake place. If he reflects, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not expect that. Suppose it took place 20 years later. It would then hardly be appropriate that the actual amount should be refunded. All one ought to do is to take into account the fact that the development charge had been paid and fix compensation with that in view.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Suppose it was paid the week before the revocation?

Mr. Silkin: If one had paid the charge the week before, I should imagine that one ought to get it back. One must provide not for the case where the revocation is the week after, which I imagine would not be frequent. It would be much more frequent that something would have been done and some benefit would have been obtained by the developer from the development for a time. It may not be the actual development. It may be a user. The question might arise whether certain premises should be used for a certain purpose, and there might be a decision to revoke. The user of the premises might have had some value from the premises and it would be quite wrong to refund to him the actual amount paid. All one ought to do is to take into account what is paid and the use which has been made of the premises. Therefore, while not disagreeing in principle with the hon. and learned Gentleman that in a proper case there should be a complete refund, I ask him to bear in mind that there might be cases where a complete refund would not be the appropriate way of dealing with it.

CLAUSE 72.—(Provisions as to applications for determinations under Part VII.)

Lords Amendment: In page 82, line 34, leave out Clause 72.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams: Would the Minister be so kind as to give the reason why this Clause is dropped. It would seem to have had some meaning at one time, and we should have some information

why the Clause was ever put in if it is now found to be completely wrong. Perhaps it is covered by the previous long Amendment, but we ought to be told and it should be made quite certain that it is covered. One cannot drop something out of a Bill and leave a gap. I hope I have not put too much of a conundrum to the Minister, and I hope that the answer is fairly simple.

Mr. Silkin: I am very much obliged for the very clear way in which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has put his question. I can give him the most solemn assurance that this Clause will reappear, perhaps in a slightly modified form, after Clause 99. I hope that we shall have the pleasure of the hon. Gentleman's presence then so that he may be able to see for himself.

CLAUSE 76.—(Unfinished buildings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 88, line 21, leave out from beginning to "in" in line 22 and insert:
immediately before that day those works could have been completed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman about the wording. I imagine the answer may be that this is merely a drafting change, but it appears at first sight to be capable of a somewhat wider construction. The Clause as amended reads:
. . then it immediately before that day those works could have been completed in conformity with the provisions of a planning scheme…
The word "could" may involve consideration of all such questions as the grant of building licences. One does not know when the appointed day will come. I do not think it is the intention that something in Clause 76 should depend on whether one gets a licence from the Ministry of Works before the appointed day, but the word "could" makes it possible for that view to be taken. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to have a look at it again. I do not think there is anything of substance between us, but the new Amendment appears at first sight to be rather dangerously wide.

Mr. Silkin: I should hardly have thought that planning permission involved permission by the Ministry of Works, but if there is the slightest doubt about it—I have the hon. and learned Gentleman's point—it will be put right. I agree with him that it is not intended to mean that.

CLAUSE 78.—(Land ripe for development before the appointed day.)

Lords Amendment: In page 90, line 22, to leave out from "satisfied" to end of line 24 and insert:
on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendment be divided."
I am moving this in order to clear the way for a further Motion I have down to disagree with so much of the said Amendment as proposes to leave out from "satisfied" in line 22, to end of line 24; and to amend the words proposed to be inserted by leaving out "appointed day," and inserting, "date on which that planning permission is granted."
To bring the subject matter of these Amendments to the notice of the House I would refer to Clause 78. It is a very important Clause about which we will hear a little more later on, which deals with what is called, "land ripe for development." It extends more favourable treatment to this sort of land if it manages to fall within the extremely strict and narrow definition contained in the Clause, but the whole of the operation of the Clause is made dependent on the opening words, which are:
Where planning permission is granted under Part III of this Act … or is deemed to have been granted …
since 1943. That is the condition precedent for this treatment for dead ripe land being available to the applicant. The effect of the Lords Amendment would be to make the opening words of the Clause read:
Where planning permission is granted under Part III of this Act in respect of any development consisting of the erection, extension or alteration of buildings, or is deemed by virtue of Section seventy-six of this Act to be so granted, then ii the Minister is satisfied—

These are the words to which I wish to draw attention:
on application made to him within one year after the appointed day or within such extended period as the Minister may in any particular case allow—
Then the rest of the Clause is brought into motion.
The proposed Amendment does two things: first, it imposes a time limit upon the application which the man makes if his case is to be considered. In the Bill before it went to another place, there was no time limit except that no man could make an application for dead ripe treatment if he had already received a payment out of the fund. That is reasonable. That was a limit that a man had not any compensatory payment. Now the Minister is seeking to give the man a year in which to make his application. That, in itself, is not unreasonable if the year starts from the right date, but what the Bill says, with the Lords Amendment, is that the man is given a year in which to make his application from the appointed day, which may be any time fixed by the Minister within the near future. Note, however, that he cannot make his application until he has had planning permission, and the consequence is that if the planning authority delays in considering his case, or if for reasons beyond the planning authority's control, the consideration of his application for planning consent takes a long time, then all the time this man's year is running out from the appointed day through no fault of his own.
The matter is of some substance, because, looking to the future, even the Minister would acknowledge that there will be a heavy burden cast upon planning authorities by the provisions of this Bill. In many cases they will be new authorities and it may well be that without imputing blame to anyone, there will be a considerable time consumed in the consideration of applications for planning consent. Therefore, if you must have a time limit, it is quite wrong to make the year run from a date over which the applicant has no control. It should run, I submit, and my Amendment provides for it, from the date on which the planning consent is given. Then the Minister has his year and the man has his year, and both are satisfied; that is to say, if the man gets his planning consent, his


year starts to run. I draw the point to the Minister's notice in the hope that he will satisfy us about it.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I do not think there is any serious difference between us on this matter. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is essential, for the administration of the fund of £300 million, that we should know at the earliest moment, what claims are to be made on it. There is obligation under the Bill to pay out within five years. A scheme has to be prepared and submitted to the House before that, and in order to make a satisfactory scheme it is necessary to know the nature of the claims. For instance, if land is dead ripe under the terms of Clause 78, then there will be no claim on the fund; if it turns out that the land is not dead ripe, then there is a claim on the fund. Therefore, it is important that these claims should come in at the earliest moment so that the Treasury may be in a position to make its regulations, and the Central Land Board may be in a position to make its payments in accordance with the statutory requirements. That is why a time limit has been imposed.
We are on common ground there, that the right hon. Gentleman does not say that there ought not to be a time limit, but his time limit is a movable one, within the discretion of the applicant himself. It is within 12 months after something which rests with the applicant. It rests with him when he makes his application. If the developer chooses to sit back and not make the planning application, then his time runs on indefinitely. Just as local authorities may not be diligent or may be overworked, so may the proposed developer, and it is unsatisfactory that one should not get in the claim as soon as possible. In the ordinary way there is no hardship on a developer in submitting a claim within 12 months.
The only contingency to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was that he may not have his planning permission, and that is a factor over which he has no control; and that even though he makes his application today or tomorrow or on the appointed day, there is no guarantee that he will get it within the 12 months. However, that has been specifically provided for, because there is power to extend, and if there was justification for

extending the time, it would be because the proposed developer was not, through circumstances not his own fault, in a position to make the application.
If the right hon. Gentleman would like it, I am quite prepared to say categorically that one of the grounds for extension of time will be that the proposed developer had not yet, even though he had put in his application in good time, had it granted. That would be eminently reasonable as a justification for extension of time, but, having regard to the fact that we shall be under a statutory obligation to make the payments, it is essential that there should be every possible expedition in applicants putting in their claims and, with that one exception—that certainly there will be an extension where through no fault of the application, planning permission has not been granted—I think the case made by the right hon. Gentleman has been met.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: With the leave of the House, may I say that I am sorry the Minister cannot find words to enable the assurance he has just given us to be given effect in this Bill. Our words were an attempt to do so, but the Minister objects to them because he says that the man might not apply for his planning permission, and thus let an undue time elapse before the financial authorities were in possession of the proper information. I see the point of that. I should think that it could be overcome, but, at this late stage in the Bill, I am to a great extent relieved by the Minister's assurance that in every case where a man is prevented from getting his planning consent, through no fault of his own, that will be taken into consideration and he will be given a reasonable time in every case to make his application for inclusion in dead ripe land. In these circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords Amendment: In page 90, line 35, at end, insert;
or
(c) that the land together with any land contiguous or adjacent to such land was on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, or would then have been but for circumstances arising out of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, in the course of develop-


ment as a residential commercial or industrial estate and that the proposed development is or would be immediately practicable but for such circumstances as aforesaid and that there is a demand for such development.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
We come again to a matter which has been discussed at every stage of the Bill, including today. We have even had some Amendments today touching on this question of ripe land. I readily agree that it is a very important provision. The Lords, when it came before them, decided that they would substantially widen the definition of ripe land and, therefore, widen the number of cases in which owners of land are exempt from the payment of development charges and do not participate in the £300 million. I submit to the House that the Lords have gone too far in the Amendment which they have made. Instead of the test that applied in the Bill as originally drawn, they have substituted three entirely new tests, which I concede straight away, on the face of it, look eminently reasonable, but which do not bear closer examination.
I wish to take the House through the three tests which are proposed. The first is that on 7th January, 1947, the land was
in the course of development. …
We are all familiar with cases where an owner buys a very large area of land intending to develop it over a long period in stages, recognising that at the time he buys it the land is not ripe for development, and that he could not profitably carry out the development for many years to come. He begins, perhaps, by providing some services on the land; perhaps building a road or so, and that would be regarded as being
in the course of development.
Any work of that sort done on the land would comply with the first requirement that the land was
in the course of development.
Therefore, by the very fact that some minor works were being carried out on a relatively small part of the land, the whole would satisfy the definition of being ripe for development. I submit that that is going too far, and really cannot be accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: What are the other two tests?

Mr. Silkin: Will the hon. and gallant Member let me make my case? I cannot speak about all three in one breath; I can only take them in turn. The second test is land which, but for the war, would have been developed. Who is going to decide that? On what basis it can be decided, I do not know. I have never known an instance where any Minister has been asked to decide, upon a purely hypothetical case of this kind, what would have happened but for the war. It is a very interesting and amusing speculation, but it is not possible to decide whether land, but for the war, would have been
in the course of development …
which I submit would not have made it ripe, because the first condition does not make it ripe. Another condition is that the development, whether qualifying under (a) or (b), whether
in the course of development…",
or land which would have been developed but for the war, is that it would have been "immediately practicable" to develop it but for the war, and circumstances arising out of the war. There again, how can one say that it would have been "immediately practicable"? What is meant by "immediately practicable"? What are the factors one is asked to take into account in deciding that the development would have been "immediately practicable"? Am I expected to take into account whether that development would have been possible to an owner but for the war, whether he could have raised the money, having bought the land, and whether he could have raised the mortgage on sufficiently profitable terms? All these are factors one ought to take into account, if one had to decide whether the development would have been "immediately practicable" but for the war.
I say that is putting an impossible burden on any Minister. One cannot project one's mind back, and get the information, and it is not really a proper test. Moreover, it still goes back to the original point of whether the development means a small piece of development, not necessarily over the whole area. Taken literally, I suppose, one can always answer that it would have been immediately prac-


ticable to carry out a small piece of road development, or to provide services on a very small part of the area. But when one is satisfied that it would have been immediately practicable, one still has not established that the whole site is dead ripe.
The third test is "that there is a demand" for the development in question. I should say there is a demand today for any kind of development. Indeed, it could be said about almost every site in the country, "that there is a demand" for the development in question, and one could create demands in that way by that test equal to many times the true demand. One is thereby once more introducing the idea of "float," because this third test would apply to many times the amount of land that would be necessary to satisfy the true demand. Therefore, I submit to the House that these tests are inequitable, unworkable and do not, in fact, determine whether land is ripe or not. I submit that the tests which have been laid down in the Bill, and which have stood the test of Debate in Committee and elsewhere, and which, generally speaking, have been accepted by the building industry, are the tests to which we should adhere.
I would remind the House that there is a class of land to which the hon. and learned Member referred earlier which was not quite ripe land. I said that the land to which he referred did not fit in with the definition, but it might very well fit in with what I have christened near-ripe land, which is to receive specially favourable treatment, as I indicated during the Committee stage. On the basis of the scheme which I then put forward, persons who carry on the business of the provision of buildings of various types will, in respect of a certain amount of near-ripe land, get compensation for a certain quantity of buildings, or land in respect of a certain quantity of buildings, at the full development value, for a period of five years; that is, they will be able to carry on their development substantially without loss in respect of development charge. They will pay the development charge, but they will get the full compensation out of the fund of £300 million, and so they will be almost as well off as if their land was ripe land. That is as it should be.
It may well turn out that the cases which were in mind when this Amendment was carried in the other place are cases which will be met by the proposals which I have made as regards near-ripe land, in which case the developers themselves will be substantially no worse off, though admittedly the compensation which they will get will come out of the fund of £300 million instead of out of additional Treasury money. I repeat that there has been no complaint about this from the interested parties, the professional developers of land. Broadly speaking, they have accepted both the definition of ripe land in the Bill and the proposals for near-ripe land.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Surely, that means that the share of those entitled to participate in the global sum will be so much less, because a special category is being placed at the head of the queue?

Mr. Silkin: That is so, but I would remind the hon. Member that in fixing the amount of the global sum, that point was taken into account.

Mr. Molson: It was only a guess.

Mr. Silkin: So the hon. Member says. I have never accepted as a fact that it is a guess. Certainly, one had in mind, in fixing the figure of £300 million, that there would be certain categories of persons who would get the full amount. If that were not so, the £300 million would have been reduced.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman addressed this consideration to the House when he was moving the Second Reading of this Bill. The whole category of near-ripe land and its claim upon the £300 million global sum was not disclosed by him until about half way through the proceedings of the Standing Committee. Will he say how he reconciles those facts with his present contention that this circumstance was taken into account in fixing the global sum in the first place?

Mr. Silkin: Certainly. I never suggested it was worked out to the last penny exactly what people were to get full compensation. All I say is that provision was made in the £300 million for a substantial amount of money to be paid in full. While I do not want to go further along those lines,


and indeed I might not be in Order if I did, it is a fact that if one eliminated that consideration, assuming that we are right in having fixed the sum at £300 million, as I think we must assume we are for the purpose of this argument, the right thing to do would be to reduce the £300 million by that amount. For those reasons, I ask the House not to agree to this Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: When one has heard the right hon. Gentleman argue on Amendments as often as I have, it is not difficult to distinguish the case in which he thinks he is on strong ground, from one in which he realises that he is on very thin ice. When he is in a difficulty, he normally takes the Amendment, submits it to a microscopic examination, and, after having spent a considerable time in doing that, points out what terrible consequences might ensue in all sorts of unlikely events. That has been his attitude towards this Amendment. He has not dealt at all satisfactorily with the principles behind this Amendment. Indeed, he made some astonishing statements. It is quite true that we have, in this House, and in the Committee upstairs, discussed this question of ripe land at every possible opportunity. The reason is obvious. The right hon. Gentleman's definition of ripe land, which he has inserted in this Measure, is an illogical, inequitable and purely arbitrary definition. It does not depend on whether land is, in its true sense, ripe for development. It depends upon all sorts of technicalities, such as building applications, by-law submissions, and, indeed, on whether an application has been made under an interim development order since a particular date.
What one wants to try to determine and define is the class of land one wants to bring within the terms of Clause 78. I did not think that, apart from the terms which the Minister inserted in the definition, in principle and in substance there was much between us as to the types of land we sought to have included in the category which did not receive compensation and was not liable to a development charge. But the right hon. Gentleman has throughout, strongly resisted any attempt to alter Clause 78. Now, he proudly says, having been one of the few people who have stood firm on the point, that it has stood the test of time. When

the people of this country realise how this Clause operates—and it is not the great professional developers who will be affected but practically every person in this country—the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to say that it stands the test of time.
Let me examine the Minister's argument in a little more detail. He says that it is inequitable that this land which is covered by this Amendment should get the treatment which this Amendment proposes, that it should be free from the liability of a development charge on one side and from compensation on the other. Is it not rather inequitable that owners of such land shall be thrown back upon the £300 million fund? It is inequitable, surely, to the other claimants upon that fund whose claims pro tanto will be reduced? Really, is there not some inequity about that? The right hon. Gentleman cannot challenge that when the £300 million figure was put forward he was pressed, on the Second Reading, to state how that figure was arrived at. In the course of that Debate we were told from the benches opposite—it may not have been by the right hon. Gentleman himself—that it was an intelligent guess. In any event, it was quite impossible to get any statement about how that figure was calculated.
In that Second Reading Debate not a word was said, according to my recollection, of this category of near-ripe land. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that at the time when near-ripe land was not mentioned in this Bill, he had taken it into account in his own mind in fixing this figure of £300 million? If he did take it into account, why did he not tell us so at that time? Why was he so shy? I submit that it is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman did not make up his mind to give preferential treatment to this category of near-ripe land until he had heard the weighty and cogent arguments put forward by my hon. Friends during the Committee stage.
Then, having decided that that case must be met, he thought, "Well, I will meet it in that particular way—by giving them a prior claim on the fund and not by altering my Clause 78, to which I pin my faith whatever injustice may ensue." I do not think that, on applying any one of the tests which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, this Amendment is inequitable


and unworkable, and I do not believe that the application of the tests contained in the Amendment would prevent a determination whether or not land was ripe. The right hon. Gentleman says that he could not project his mind backwards, and that he would not be able to decide the issues raised by this Amendment, but whether or not the matter was established would depend upon the evidence produced before him. No one is asking him to make up his mind in a vacuum. Surely, if he is in any difficulty about the matter he ought to accept the proposal that there should be some tribunal to determine these matters and to decide whether the methods set out in the Amendment are or are not affirmatively established? If they are, I suggest that we would get a much more satisfactory conclusion on what is near-ripe or dead ripe land than we do in the Clause as it stands, where so much depends not upon the nature of the site before the war, not upon what has been done to it, but upon whether or not a certain formality has been carried out.
I do not want to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the argument we put before him during Committee stage that, in the case where an estate had been bought for development and where one part was in process of development within the terms of Clause 78, it was quite illogical to draw an arbitrary fence round that part and to exclude the remainder where roads and everything else had been built, but where actual building had not started. We asked the Minister then to take a broad view of the matter and to try to arrive at a definition of what was near-ripe land. We asked him not to fence the whole thing round with restrictions depending so much on formalities. I do not think that the acceptance of this Amendment would do any harm to the Bill. Its rejection will make the Bill poorer. If the right hon. Gentleman persists in his objection, I fear that there will be only one course open to us to show our disagreement with him.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I intervene to call attention to one very astonishing admission in the speech of the Minister. He said that certain applicants would be able to share in a preferential way in the £300 million fund. He then went on to make, I think, for the first time, the very astonishing allegation and, to my mind,

admission, that this had been taken into calculation when the £300 million had been calculated. I would like to draw the attention of the House to what that admission amounts to. The calculation which we have had hitherto was that which the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give us on Second Reading. Although we very much wondered why we could not have had it before, in the White Paper, or why it should not have been referred to an independent tribunal, we did gather that in the right hon. Gentleman's own view it was a fair sum in order to meet all legitimate claims in full. He now informs the House that in his deliberate calculation he calculated that only some fair claims should be met in full and that others should have to accept a dividend, and a dividend only. I think it is the first time that that admission has been made in this House, and attention should be drawn to it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I wish only to ask one question. I hope that the Minister will prove me wrong in what I say. I was unable to be a member of the Standing Committee which considered this Bill, but I have read the reports very carefully. As far as I understand it, the purely formal tests to which reference has been made are the only tests of ripe land. Suppose there is a site in a town, not caused by war damage but one upon which no building has taken place. There may be personal reasons for delay. The owner may have been abroad for a very long time. I can think of many reasons why an application for development of land of this type was not made before the appointed day. That land is ripe land. If land in the middle of a town is not ripe land, what is ripe land? I would like to have a reply from the Minister in regard to this point.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I want to say a few words on this matter, which occupied us upstairs and also on Report stage in this House. The Clause has, in one respect, improved since those days, and that is by the incorporation of the provisions relating to building applications. Having made a point of this during the earlier stages of the Bill, I merely want to say that the present position is, to that extent, an improvement on that with which we were originally confronted; but the present position is still unsatisfactory unless the Amendment which the Minister proposes


to reject is accepted and its provisions are incorporated in the Bill.
It will be within the recollection of my hon. Friends that there were two alternative proposals originally put forward from this side of the House to enlarge the definition of ripe land so as to put the position right. The Minister turns his face against the enlargement of the definition of ripe land. His approach to the problem is a different one. What he poses is that the definition of ripe land should be drawn as narrowly as possible; and that, if there be any hardship, it should be met by creating a category of near-ripe land, to which reference has already been made, and which was defined by the right hon. Gentleman in the 18th sitting day of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill. One of the differences between the arrangement proposed for near-ripe land and the enlargement of the definition of dead-ripe land, which is what we propose, is, of course, that the arrangements for near-ripe land do not form part of the Bill as such at all. They are left to be dealt with hereafter in the scheme for the distribution of the global figure of £300 million of compensation.
Our objection to the point of view of the Minister, in taking up the view that it does not matter so much how narrowly we define dead-ripe land, because we are giving this preferential claim on the global sum in respect of this new category of near-ripe land, is, of course, that the right hon. Gentleman is robbing a deserving Peter to pay an equally deserving Paul, and it is simply a balancing of this amount. What the Minister proposes is to give a larger slice of a cake of fixed size to people who fall within his definition of near-ripe land; and he says that this method of dealing with this question has the approval of the building industry. That seems to me to be a very naïve remark, and the Minister is not generally naïve in these matters. Obviously, it does not matter very much to builders whether they can get their land free of development charge or are compensated thereafter by a preferential claim on the global sum. The people to whom it matters, of course, are those whose claims on the £300 million are dependent pari passu on the amount of the preferential claims in respect of owners of near-ripe land.
We have consistently rejected this approach to the question. We have consistently taken the view that the solution was not to be found in enlarging the preferential claims on the global sum, but in striving to get a right, workable definition of dead-ripe land, so that everything that comes within that definition is excluded both from the scheme of compensation and the assessment of the development charge. The right hon. Gentleman has not, to my mind, met that case at all. His argument was a little halt and limping; and it was that this matter had been given consideration in the original estimate of the £300 million. Since he made that observation, I have refreshed my memory of the proceedings in the Standing Committee, and have found that there was no clear statement then, any more than on Second Reading.
The only other argument which the right hon. Gentleman has invoked against the enlargement of the definition of dead-ripe land proposed by this Amendment is the difficulty of assessing the question of demand. The Minister suggests that it will be difficult to eliminate the question of floating demand. With respect, and one does not want to be dogmatic on what must be a difficult and technical question, I should not think that that analogy was a very close one, nor that it would necessarily be very difficult in assessing demand to eliminate the element of "float." After all, what would be necessary for the owner of an estate in course of development to show would be that there was a precise and specific demand for this particular estate. If the demand which he adduced in evidence for a particular estate was also adduced in evidence as demand for some other estate, so as to make it qualify to come within the definition of dead-ripe land, it certainly would not seem to be a very difficult business to show that the demands are only given effect in regard to, one specific estate. It may be difficult, though I should not have thought it was; and, even if so, it would hardly seem to be an insuperable obstacle to the enlargement of the definition of dead-ripe land, which I am convinced is right, from the point of view of development, and also right in being more equitable and a more practical approach to the question than the Minister's alternative of simply enlarging the claims of certain parties on the global sum.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 264; Noes, 59.

Division No. 350.]
AYES.
[4.48 p.m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Foot, M. M.
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Forman, J. C.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Alpass, J. H.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Martin, J. H.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Mathers, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Gallacher, W.
Medland, H. M


Attewell, H. C.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Messer, F.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Austin, H. Lewis
Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.


Awbery, S. S.
Gilzean, A.
Monslow, W


Ayles, W H
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Moody, A. S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Goodrich, H. E
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Baird, J.
Gordon, Walker, P. C.
Morley, R.


Balfour, A.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)


Barstow, P. G
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Barton, C.
Grey, C. F.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Battley, J. R.
Grierson, E.
Moyle, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Murray, J. D.


Benson, G.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Naylor, T. E.


Berry, H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Beswick, F.
Gunter, R. J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Guy, W. H.
Orbach, M.


Bing, G. H. C
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paget, R. T.


Binns, J.
Hale, Leslie
Pargiter, G. A


Blackburn, A. R.
Hall, W. G.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.
Pearson, A.


Blyton, W. R
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Peart, Thomas F.


Boardman, H.
Harrison, J.
Piratin, P.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Haworth, J.
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Herbison. Miss M.
Price, M. Philips


Bramall, E A.
Hicks, G.
Proctor, W. T.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hobson, C. R
Pryde, D. J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Holman, P.
Pursey, Cmdr H


Bruce, Major D. W. T
House, G.
Ranger, J,


Burden, T. W.
Hoy, J.
Rankin, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hubbard, T.
Rees-Williams, D. R.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Byers, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Robens, A.


Champion, A. J.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Chater, D.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Cobb, F. A.
Irving, W. J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Cocks, F. S.
Janner, B.
Sargood, R.


Coldrick, W.
Jay, D. P. T.
Scollan, T.


Collick, P.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Collindridge, F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sharp, Granville


Collins, V. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shawcross, Rt Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Colman, Miss G. M
Keenan, W.
Shurmer, P.


Corvedale, Viscount
Kenyon, C.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.


Cove, W. G.
Key, C. W.
Silverman S. S. (Nelson)


Crawley, A
King, E. M.
Simmons, C. J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Skeffington, A. M.


Daines, P.
Kinley, J.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Lavers, S,
Skinnard, F. W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee Miss J (Cannock)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Leonard, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Deer, G.
Lever, N. H.
Solley, L. J


Diamond, G.
Levy, B. W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dodds, N. N.
Lindgren, G. S.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lipson, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Lyne, A. W.
Stephen, C.


Dumpleton, C. W.
McAdam, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Durbin, E. F. M.
McAllister, G.
Stubbs, A. E.


Dye, S.
McEntee, V. La T
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Edelman, M.
McGhee, H G
Swingler, S.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Symonds, A. L.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Ewart, R.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Fernyhough, E.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Field, Captain W. J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)




Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Wise, Major F. J.


Thurtle, Ernest
Whiteley, Rt Hon. W.
Woods, G. S.


Tiffany, S.
Wilcock, Group-Capt C A. B
Wyatt, W.


Tolley, L.
Wilkes, L.
Yates, V F.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wilkins, W. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Zilliacus, K.


Viant, S. P.
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)



Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Willis, E.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Wills, Mrs E A
Mr. Popplewell.


Wells, P. L. (Faversham)






NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grant, Lady
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Gridley, Sir A.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Grimston, R. V.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt Hon. Sir C.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bower, N.
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Challen, C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Channon, H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Marsden, Capt A
Touche, G. C.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Medlicott, F.
Vane, W M. F.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Crowder, Capt. John E
Molson, A. H E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Morrison, Rt Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Watt, Sir G S. Harvie


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drayson, G B
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Nicholson, G
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Mr. Drewe and


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Lieut.-Colonel Thorp.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G Lloyd (P'ke)
Orr-Ewing, I. L



Question put, and agreed to.

5.0 p.m.

Lords Amendment: In page 91, line 19, leave out from "application" to end of line.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next are both consequential on the one which we have just disposed of.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: With the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that I, and I think, my right hon. and hon. Friends, also, would not disagree that the next Amendment after this one is consequential on the Amendment which has just been disposed of, but we think that there is a special point in this line 19 Amendment which the Minister ought to explain to the House, if he is going to reject it. It is a narrow point, but one which is not unimportant. In some cases, it may be important, and we would like to hear the Minister's reasons for rejecting the proposal.

Mr. Silkin: I thought it was consequential, because I assumed that, by its vote, the House had accepted the definition of "ripe land," as set out in Clause 78 of the Bill. The Amendment to line 19, which we are now discussing, introduces

a variation of the definition of "building application," so as to include cases of planning applications not accompanied by plans of the proposed building, but only broad layouts. I can only say that that would be an extension of the definition of Clause 78 which would not be acceptable. I do not know whether the House would wish me to elaborate that; I can do so if required.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The point which is causing me some concern is this: If there is a specific case of a building developer who submits a lay-out plan, giving a rough idea of the houses which he proposes to erect, but not detailed plans of each house, does that qualify or not? We hope it does qualify and we think it ought to. But that is the kind of point we have in mind. Their Lordships inserted this Amendment because they felt that land ought to be included as ripe building land, if the building application had been submitted with lay-out plans which were not necessarily plans of the buildings proposed to be erected.

Mr. Silkin: With the leave of the House, may I say that the answer is that a layout plan is not sufficient. There must be a detailed plan. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that there is a big difference between submitting a general description of how an estate is to be laid out


and actually getting down to the details and submitting them. The general layout application is not necessarily an indication or proof that the land is really ripe for development. People who are about to acquire land may very well submit an application of that sort, and in my experience they have done so, merely to get some idea of what might be permitted if they wanted to develop, but the development might not follow for years afterwards. It is intended to take into account only detailed proposals for inclusion in the definition of ripe land.

Further Lords Amendment disagreed to: In page 91, line 25, at end, insert:
which has been supported by such plans or particulars as were required to be furnished under the said Acts or the said bye-laws or other enactments, as the case may be, being an application in respect of development which was or would have been but for circumstances arising out of the emergency which was the occasion of the passing of the Courts (Emergency Powers) Act, 1939, immediately practicable at the date of the application and for which there was at such date a demand for such development which it was the intention of the applicant to satisfy.

CLAUSE 79.—(Mineral workings.)

Lords Amendment: In page 91, line 46, at end, insert:
(c) that where—

(i) a mining lease was in force on the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, having on that day an un-expired term of not less than three years, or
(ii) minerals were being won and worked immediately before that day by a person having an interest therein otherwise than under a mining lease,

no payment shall be made under the said Part VI in respect of any interest in the minerals comprised in the said mining lease, or in any minerals which form part of the same seam or deposit as that in respect of which the operations mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph were being carried out and in respect of which an interest was held as mentioned in the said sub-paragraph, as the case may be, and that no development charge shall be payable under the said Part VII in respect of the winning and working of the said minerals under the mining lease referred to in sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph or in respect of the winning and working of any minerals referred to in the said sub-paragraph (ii) in respect of which no payment has been made under the said Part VI as aforesaid."

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
A good deal of consideration has been devoted to this Amendment, both in Standing Committee and in another place, and I think it is true to say that, of all the Amendments, this has aroused the greatest interest in another place. It is the Amendment dealing with minerals. Briefly, the proposal from another place is to take out from the compensation and betterment proposals so much mineral land as would cover all the minerals in the seam or deposit, in respect of minerals being worked otherwise than under lease. It is quite impossible to say what is part of the same seam or deposit. Ever since this Bill has been under consideration there has been an attempt to delimit the area of land in respect of which minerals are being worked, so as to draw a line to correspond with what in the case of building land is ripe land, and land which is not ripe. In the case of minerals there must be a large amount of land which may not be ripe for a very long time to come, if ever, and this is truly unripe. So far, we have failed to draw a clear and intelligible line to distinguish between what is ripe and not ripe. That is one of the reasons for giving to the mineral worker the three years' moratorium which is provided for in the Bill. As the Bill stands, he will be allowed to work his minerals for three years, either from the appointed day or 7th January—I am not sure which—but, at any rate, for a further three years.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: It is from the appointed day.

Mr. Silkin: I am obliged. The assumption is that the additional three years' working, together with such workings as are taking place until the appointed day, would give the mineral worker the full value of his minerals and a reasonable equivalent to the owner of dead ripe land. The question then arises, what should be done as regards mineral workings which will clearly take place, or which will probably be continued, after the expiration of the three years? The proposal in another place was that for the whole of the duration of the lease, whatever it might be, all those workings should be treated as ripe land, even though it would not follow that the minerals would be worked, or that they would be worked as intensively as they are today, or that there would necessarily be a demand for those minerals. After all, we are talking of


leases which may be of 99 years' duration, and it seems fatuous to suggest that minerals which may not be worked for 30, 40 or 50 years can be included in the category and treated as ripe land. Therefore, I find myself unable to accept the Amendment which has been put forward in another place, as I think it goes much too high.
If my analogy is fair—that is, that one can treat mineral land similarly to ordinary building land, and divide it into categories of ripe and near ripe, as I think one can—then I should be prepared to deal with land which is worked for minerals in the same way, by introducing a new category of land equivalent to the near ripe land in the case of building developments. The position would be that an undertaker holding freehold mineral land, say, on 7th January last, would receive payment of compensation equal to the full development value in respect of the mineral land needed for a future programme of extraction of a fixed amount.
One would endeavour to agree with each category of mineral owner—not with each individual owner, but with each category of owner—of gravel, iron ore, iron stone, and so on; one would endeavour to agree what is a reasonable rate of extraction, what is a reasonable period of extraction. In the case of one owner it might be ten years; it might be 12 years; it might even be 15 years; and I would not rule out as long a period as that. I would say, dealing with each category of mineral extractor, and also agreeing with him as to a fair average rate of extraction, that, in respect of that reasonable amount of mineral, number of years and rate of extraction, he should be entitled to the full compensation out of the fund of £300 million and should pay the full development charge. As to the remainder of his extraction, he would pay the normal development charge; and as to any land remaining beyond the agreed rate and period of extraction, he would rank in the ordinary way for payment out of the £300 million. That would place the mineral workers, as I have said, in a position comparable with that of the ordinary building developers, and I think it would go a very long way towards meeting their legitimate demands.
Let me say at once that, probably, I think, the right hon. Gentleman and his

friends would accept this, almost without question—though they would like to look at it—but for the fact that the compensation is to come out of the £300 million. But I want to say once more that this was a factor which was broadly taken into account. I am not suggesting that one had worked out how much was likely to be paid in respect of this particular Amendment out of the £300 million. But one had assumed that there would be a certain number of people who would have payments out of the £300 million for the full amount of their compensation, and had allowed for that, and had assumed that others would come into less than the full amount. Therefore, I do not think that, in accepting this proposal, which would be in the form of a regulation, and which would be agreed with the representatives of the mineral workers, any real injustice would be done to those who would rank pro rata for the £300 million; because, as I have said, if it had not been intended to pay certain people the full amount of compensation, the £300 million would certainly have been reduced. But I think that, apart from that point, on the merits, the proposal that I have put forward is worthy of acceptance, and would reasonably meet the point of view of the mineral workers, and I hope that, on this explanation, the House may see its way not to press for the retention of this Amendment.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very interesting suggestion to us which I have heard for the first time, and in the course of his introductory remarks he made it clear he was about to conduct some conversations with mineral workers as to the possibility of arriving at some scheme of this character. I do not want to say anything at short notice and without consideration which would hamper the coming together of the parties at variance for a settlement of their disputes, and so, if the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I shall not attempt at short notice to say anything on that matter for the time being, thinking it might do good, which might only do harm. I am too old a negotiator myself to enter on such matters without having them in black and white and firmly in my own mind. I am not a mineral worker and I am not entitled to speak for them; I am only a Member of Parliament.
On this particular matter that we are discussing, namely, whether we accept or reject the Amendment made by the Lords, I have these observations, purely on political grounds and technical Parliamentary grounds, to address to the House. I have made many speeches on the question of the minerals in the course of our discussions, and so I desire now to be as brief as I can. I remember making a very long speech on the subject once in Standing Committee, which is on record. I have always regarded the inclusion of minerals in this Bill as its worst blemish. I say so for this reason. The right hon. Gentleman is in his present difficulty—he is not satisfied with things as they stand today, as witness his speech—because he is proceeding on an analogy which is not a true analogy, namely, the analogy of mineral working with the development of land. They are not the same. They are governed by different economic considerations. The attempt to apply a method which has been worked out for dealing with a complicated system of development values in land to an entirely different thing—different in nature; a different subject, like mineral working—is, I think, at the root of the confusion and difficulty on this subject that has been continued all through our discussions.
Let me put it this way. We resorted to a global sum to compensate owners for development rights. The justification for that, if justification it be, is only in the fact that there is a floating value in the assessment of development charge for ordinary building. No one can know exactly where development will float. Its location is not fixed. Consequently, if everybody's claim is taken into consideration, there will be more claims than houses built. But in the case of minerals, there they are: they do not float; they are fixed in the soil; and their presence can be ascertained. Certainly, in all current mining operations, where the thing is in existence—and it is to this land alone that the Lords Amendment refers—in all those cases the minerals are there and ascertained. There is no question of any float about it. But, in my opinion, if they are being acquired there is no justification for acquiring them by a global sum such as is appropriate to mere speculative ventures like the development of houses.
So much for the compensation side of it. When we come to the betterment side the thing is even clearer. We are in this Bill charging the owners of ordinary land a development charge because we say that they are being given a planning permission which will enable them to increase the capital value of their properties by putting bricks and mortar upon them. In the case of an owner of mining land, the operations do not increase the value of his property. They diminish it. There is no justification here for a development charge. If we go to Northamptonshire and see what was once good agricultural land is like after the ironstone has been taken away, we can see that the mining operation was not an operation like one for the improving of a great estate by the building of houses upon it. It is a very different thing, and, indeed, the very reverse of the development of land in the ordinary building sense. So I say that minerals should never have been included for compensation and betterment in this Bill. If the Government had decided to take over minerals, they should have produced a separate Bill for the purpose, founded upon the special character of mineral working, and not proceeding upon the analogy, which I claim is false, between development by mining and development by putting up houses and other buildings. That is the reason, in principle and in theory, against this proposal to include minerals. It was a reason which not only convinced me in excluding minerals, when I was responsible for the Coalition White Paper on this subject, but which convinced the Uthwatt Committee when they were considering the same matter,
5.30 p.m.
Even at this late stage, if the Minister cannot exclude mineral workings entirely from this Bill, then he ought at least to adopt the suggestion made in another place, that for current mining transactions there ought to be a, moratorium; they ought to be allowed to proceed without being involved in a compensation and betterment scheme which is not applicable to them, yet they are dragged in although the scheme has been worked out for the ordinary building development of land. That is my major point, and always has been. In the course of our discussions I have referred from time to time to the value of these minerals. I do not intend to enlarge upon that to-day, because I


discussed it very fully in Standing Committee, and gave the reasons. In another place a considerably lower estimate was given, which I could analyse and suggest where the differences arise, but there again, that would be out of the scope of our discussions. The Minister says, "I do not wish to pledge myself to figures which I must take upon the authority of others." The importance of the matter is, that the larger the true value of the minerals, the less there is left out of the £300 million for other people.

Mr. Gallacher: Give them nothing.

Mr. Morrison: That is. the view of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). He, we know, would not give them anything. But, assuming he is not speaking for the party opposite—an assumption which I think I am entitled to make—it is of importance to see that we get this figure right. If, indeed, I was right when I said the true figure was between £50 million and £100 million, that is a tremendous slice out of a compensation fund intended to deal primarily with development and not mining at all. The relevance of these calculations and discussions is of moment not only to the mineral workers, but to all those who have to rely upon the fixed sum of £300 million for compensation in respect of the deprivation of their development rights.
The last point I desire to make upon this matter is one which I made before. If one examines the profits for royalties, or the output of minerals—I care not what standard is taken—they show the greatest activity, as one would expect, in times of vigorous, progressive house building. The contrary is also true, and if a check is put upon the proper development of those minerals, then a grave impediment is put in the way of a really important housing drive in this country. We know the difficulties that have attended the building of houses; we know that there is not a strong current of house building, which would take this in its stride, but a weak and feeble stream. Any impediment placed in the way of house building at the present time is to be doubly deplored. If these minerals-the greater part of which is used directly in the service of making homes for the people—are dragged into this compensation and betterment scheme, it will have a deleterious effect upon the

housing programme, and will add one more check to the great desire felt, I believe, in every part of the House, to get on with the provision of homes for the people.
If the Government are determined to go on with this scheme they should, as was proposed in another place, exclude altogether current mining transactions. Those involved here do not ask for compensation; they make no claim out of the £300 million, and they should not pay the betterment charge. Leave them alone to get on with their business, for I am sure that would be in the interests of good administration, of housing, and of a good scheme in the Bill with which we are now dealing.

Mr. C. Williams: Before addressing myself to the subject under discussion, I must disclose to the House that I have a small interest in certain mineral rights. In years gone by I have had a close association with the development of minerals in Cornwall, and therefore, having some knowledge of the subject, I think it would be wrong of me not to point out to the House on this occasion that mineral development is entirely remote from the development of the land. They cannot possibly be dealt with on the same lines; the same considerations are not applicable, and we cannot possibly know what will happen in the future. Let me give two or three illustrations. First, the tin and copper mining industries, which go back not hundreds but thousands of years. At one time those industries were valuable and prosperous, but discoveries elsewhere have rendered them almost valueless today. For the life of me, I cannot see how any sort of compensation can be worked out in that case. When different people and concerns own varying fractions of a lease there will be enormous complications in apportioning the amount of compensation.
There may be areas of land containing minerals, which, in the next few years, will be of considerable importance to this country, but that has nothing whatever to do with ordinary compensation for the development of building land. For example, China clay is a raw material which will be absolutely essential to us, in view of the impending financial crisis. We shall have to develop that industry to the fullest possible extent in this country, and how can we hope to fix any form of


compensation and betterment? It is sometimes assumed that the development of minerals is profitable to the landowner, but that is not necessarily so. I once undertook an electioneering venture in Cheshire—at which I was not too successful—and one of the important considerations arose over the salt mines, when legislation was introduced to deal with it. Compensation for minerals involves legal complications which will keep many lawyers busy for quite a long while. Those minerals are the raw materials which we shall need in the immediate future.
My right hon. Friend referred to the value of building stone. When you are dealing with a county council, they do not want a lease for three or four years, because they want to develop for a long period, and at the end of the period a considerable amount of land may be quite useless. You cannot tell now how you are to compensate now, or how many acres they will take—a thousand things may turn up; the county council may find a better stone somewhere else, which is handier or easier to work.
I have tried not to be controversial, and to put a point of view which I felt should be put. I represent a West Country constituency, and this is a matter which affects the living of many people, although it does not affect a very large number in my constituency. The Minister said that he was looking into this. I hope that even at this late stage he may see that the argument against bringing minerals into the Bill is stronger than he originally thought. That being so, this Amendment will not do any great harm, nor will it wreck the Bill. This Clause is an unnatural thing to graft on to the plant of this Bill. Is it really worth doing something which will upset industry at the present time, and which in all probability will have to be cut out when the financial crisis comes? Would it not be better to cut it out now, than to have to do so at a later stage?

545 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: This is the first opportunity that Members, who were not fortunate enough to be on the Committee upstairs, have had to consider this question of minerals. The Minister has agreed that it is a very important matter, although it occupies only one Clause in the Bill. I wish to say at once that I have an interest, although not a very large interest, and therefore

hon. Members will no doubt discount to some extent anything I may say on the grounds that my views may be prejudiced. On the other hand, I have the advantage of knowing something about the matter, which may possibly be of help to the House. It is quite clear that the native minerals of this country are of very great importance to the nation, particularly at the present time. In the aggregate, and on the scale they are now being developed, I suspect that they amount to a considerably larger total than the figures which have been indicated from the other side would lead one to suppose. It is only right to draw attention to the fact that the increasing mechanisation, which is going on at the present time, makes a considerable difference to the possibility of development during succeeding years. I could give an example of one mineral, being worked on a very large scale, where the output has been doubled or trebled in the last two or three years without any very substantial increase in manpower. That is due to mechanisation—power loading, and so on.
The importance of minerals is so great that the procedure of dealing with all minerals in one Clause of this Bill, which is a very lengthy and involved Measure and deals chiefly with other matters, is in my view entirely wrong. I can understand that it is the procedure the Minister has adopted and intends to adhere to, and I propose therefore to address myself to the problem with that in mind. The procedure laid down leaves too many gaps in our knowledge, and too many uncertainties. It will give rise to a considerable amount of frustration and annoyance, and I am fearful that to some extent it may lead to holding up mineral development. I sincerely hope that it will not be the case, because it is important that mineral development should not be held up. If it is suggested that there should be some method of dealing with minerals, I would have preferred the matter to be thoroughly examined and dealt with in quite another way. However, it is now in the Bill as presented by the Minister, and I, therefore, want to make one or two detailed observations and objections to the Clause as drafted. The period of three years, which the Minister has laid down as a sort of moratorium, is really too short. I appreciate that, owing


to the fact that he has to obtain a valuation within five years, it would be difficult to extend that period beyond five years. It is a difficulty which arises from the fact that he has approached the matter in this way.
The next point is that it will be very expensive to work this Clause, and it will absorb a great deal of time and manpower which may hold up the development of our national resources. I say that because it means large numbers of people interested in this matter will be obliged to devote much of their time, during the next five years, to the problems of valuation and so on, when many of them could be better employed in getting on with the job. This, of course, applies to mining engineers, and to all those accustomed to deal with these matters. The procedure of assessing compensation is bound to be lengthy, and the fact that it will reach a higher figure than the Minister anticipates will only add to the difficulties, because it will make the £300 million even more difficult to distribute. Be that as it may, it is a problem we shall face in the future, there being no opportunity at the moment of making any adjustment in the £300 million.
The levy which is being imposed will tend to impede mineral production, which should, of course, be avoided. It is really a tax on mineral production, and we ought to task the Minister to contrive, in his regulations, to get rid of as much uncertainty as possible. I put that point forward most seriously, because uncertainty is the bane of all businesses and all development. The more uncertainties there are, the more difficult it is to proceed. By way of illustration, I would ask the Minister to imagine how difficult it is today to enter into a mining lease, when there is a Clause in this Bill which gives him power to vary the terms of the lease as soon as it is made. He must appreciate that this adds greatly to the difficulties of owners and managers and their legal advisers, when trying to enter into any agreements, or leases. I have had practical experience of that already, and I call the Minister's attention to it.
Again, the complete uncertainty as to the amount of the levy is a very serious difficulty. There was an Amendment, about two hours ago, which seemed to indicate that the Minister would not be able to

differentiate in the levy he would charge for the same class of development. That was an Amendment from another place which, I presume, applies to these minerals. The question I would like to put to the right hon. Gentleman is this: Will the rate of levy be the same for the same class of business? Let me take brick shale and brick clay? Will they have to pay the same rate of levy, or will one brickworks have to pay a great deal higher levy than another? That sort of uncertainty makes things difficult for anyone engaged in any enterprise. It is hardly fair for one producer, producing a material, to be subject to a higher levy than another producer who is engaged in producing the same kind of material. I can understand that the levy may be different as between sandstone and limestone, or brick clay and gypsum, but when we are dealing with the same material Will the levy be the same?
I would like to say a word or two about the Minister's analogy; it did not strike me as being altogether justifiable. He was trying to draw an analogy between mineral workings and ripe land. I suggest that existing quarries and mineral workings are a great deal more than dead ripe; they are already being eaten. The Minister suggests that certain quarries and mining operations can be treated as dead-ripe land. Really they are more than dead-ripe; they are already being consumed. It is not a fair analogy to compare them with building development, which is in a different category. They are much more parallel to land which has actually been developed. May I give an example? Let us take a deposit of limestone adjoining a cement works, which may belong to the cement company or to somebody else. If the cement works is likely to continue in considerable production for a number of years, and a large sum of money, possibly hundreds of thousands of pounds, has been spent on it, the limestone "supply to the cement works, in that case, has a very certain sale and a very assured royalty. It is, therefore, a reasonable and sound investment. That partakes more in the nature of land which has been developed, rather than land on which there has been no building.
The Minister pointed out that his difficulty had been one of delimitation. I can only suggest that, in practice, I do


not think he will find the problem of delimitation nearly as difficult as it sounds in theory, and that if he has to administer this—as he will have to do under regulations—he will not find it hard to delimit, in every case, an appropriate area for exclusion both from compensation and levy. There are many other problems on which I could touch, but I will not, except to say that what the right hon. Gentleman said shows that he appreciates the difficulties. I hope that in some way or other the House and the Government will find a way of solving this difficult problem.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I ought to disclose my interest in this matter, and my interest is in the amenities of Northamptonshire, where I have had my home for many years. I do not want to pass this last opportunity we have of discussing this subject without putting on record the fact that, although for two years

the Minister has had in his hands the problem of dealing with surface restoration, he has found time to levy a development charge in respect of mineral extraction without making any provision for the restoration of the surface land. To impose anything in the form of a development charge on mineral extraction without making any provision at all for surface restoration is entirely wrong. If any taxation is to be imposed on mineral extraction it ought to be linked up with the liability which may be imposed for surface restoration, and take into account the restoration. The right hon. Gentleman is ignoring what should be the major problem for his consideration in the Midlands.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 247; Noes, 50.

Division No. 351.]
AYES.
[5.57 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Herbison, Miss M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hewitson, Capt. M


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hicks, G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Diamond, J.
Hobson, C. R


Anderson, F (Whitehaven)
Dodds, N. N.
Holman, P.


Attewell, H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N,
House, G.


Austin, H- Lewis
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hoy, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hubbard, T.


Ayles, W H.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Dys, S.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Baird, J.
Edelman, M.
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Barstow. P. G.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Barton, C,
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Battley, J. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Irving, W. J.


Benson, G.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Janner, B.


Berry, H.
Ewart, R.
Jay, D. P. T.


Beswick, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Field, Captain W. J.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Bing, G. H. C
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Keenan, W.


Binns, J.
Follick, M.
Kenyon, C.


Blackburn, A. R.
Foot, M. M.
Key, C. W.


Blenkinsop, A.
Forman, J. C.
King, E. M.


Blyton, W R
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Kinley, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Gaitskell, H T N.
Lavers, S.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Gallacher, W.
Lawson, Rt Hon. J. J


Bramall, E. A.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, Miss J (Cannock)


Brown, George (Belper)
Gibson, C. W
Leonard, W,


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gilzean, A.
Leslie, J. R.


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lever, N. H.


Burden, T. W.
Goodrich, H E.
Levy, B. W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Byers, Frank
Greenwood, A. W J (Heywood)
Lindgren, G. S.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Grey, C. F.
Lipson, D. L.


Chater, D.
Grierson, E.
Lyne, A W


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McAdam, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Gunter, R. J
McAllister, G


Collick, P.
Guy, W. H.
McEntee, V La T


Collindridge, F.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
McGhee, H G


Collins, V. J.
Hale, Leslie
Mack, J. D.


Colman, Miss G. M,
Hall, W G.
McKay, J (Wallsend)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col R
McLeavy, F.


Corvedale, Viscount
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Crossman, R. H. S
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mallalieu, J. p. W.


Daines, P
Haworth, J
Mann, Mrs. J




Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Robens, A.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Marquand, H A
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Robertson, J. J (Berwick)
Thurtle, Ernest


Medland, H. M.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Tiffany, S.


Mitchison, G. R
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon G


Monslow, W
Sargood, R
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Scollan, T.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Morley, R.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Viant, S. P.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Sharp, Granville
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Waliace, H. W. (Walthamstow. E.)


Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Shurmer, P.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Moyle, A.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Weitzman, D.


Murray, J. D.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Naylor, T. E.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Skinnard, F. W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Smith, C (Colchester)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Orbach, M.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C A. B


Paget, R. T.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wilkes, L.


Palmer, A. M F.
Solley, L. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Pargiter, G A
Sorensen, R. W.
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Popplewell, E.
Sparks, J. A.
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Stephen, C.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Price, M. Philips
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Willis, E.


Proctor, W. T.
Stubbs, A. E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Pryde, D. J.
Swingler, S,
Wise, Major F. J


Pursey, Cmdr H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woods, G. S


Ranger, J.
Symonds, A. L.
Wyatt, W.


Rankin, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Rees-Williams, D. R
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Reeves, J.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Zilliacus, K.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)



Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Thomas, George (Car'diff)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. Simmons.




NOES.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.
Low, Brig. A R W.
Strauss, H G. (English Universities)


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Mellor, Sir J.
Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F.


Carson, E
Molson, A. H. E.
Touche, G. C.


Challen, C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Vane, W. M. F.


Channon, H.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Walker-Smith, D.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Nicholson, G.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Nield, B. (Chester)
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Drayson, G B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Raikes, H. V.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Rayner, Brig. R.



Gage, C.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lambert, Hon. G.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Savory, Prof D. L

Lords Amendment agreed to: In line 38, leave out Clause 83, and insert new-Clause E [Land held for charitable purposes].

Lords Amendment: In page 97, line 21, at end, insert:

New Clause F.—(Investment land held for charitable purposes.)

(1) This Section applies to land an interest in which is held on charitable trusts or for ecclesiastical or other charitable purposes of any description if the land is not used in any such manner as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of section eighty-four.

(2) The provisions of Part VI of this Act shall apply to any such interest as aforesaid in land which on the appointed day is land to which this Section applies.

(3) Where any land, which, on the appointed day, was land to which this Section applies ceases at any time thereafter to be such land, any development charge which shall be payable under Part VII of

this Act in respect of any development by virtue of which the land is used in any such manner as is mention in Subsection (1) of Section eighty-four or its use is made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land shall not, subject to the provisions of Subsection (4) of this Section, exceed the amount of any payments made under Part VI of this Act in respect of the said land, if planning permission for that development has been granted under Part III of this Act before the land ceases to be land to which this Section applies.

(4) Where any payment has been made under Part VI of this Act in respect of any land to which on the appointed day this Section applies and any part or parts of such land cease at any time thereafter to be such land the limitation imposed by Subsection (3) of this Section upon the amount of the development charge payable in respect of such part or parts of the said land shall apply only to the amount, if any, by which the aggregate of the development charges


payable in respect of all such part or parts exceeds the payment made under Part VI of this Act in respect of the whole of such land.

(5) Where any such interest as is mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section in land to which this Section applies is compulsorily acquired under this or any other Act in pursuance of a notice to treat served on or after the appointed day, then if the land was land to which this Section applies on the appointed day, it shall be assumed in assessing the compensation payable in respect of the acquisition of the said interest, that planning permission would be granted under Part III of this Act for any development by virtue of which the use of the land would be made to correspond with the use which prevails generally in the case of contiguous or adjacent land, and that the development charge payable under Part VII of this Act in respect of any such development would be limited in the manner provided in Subsection (3) and (4) of this Section.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is the subject which has received a good deal of consideration both in this House and in another place. It may be for the convenience of the House if I first describe very briefly in what way the new Clause E [Land held for charitable purposes] which has been agreed to, differs from the original Clause as it left this House. A number of extensions have been made to the charity Clause so as to widen its scope and to give charities further exemptions. These have been made at the instance of educational trusts, the National Trust, Boy Scouts, etc. I think that I can summarise the changes that have been made under two heads.
The first is that the Clause in the Bill as sent from the Commons was confined to land used for charitable purposes for which there was no general demand or market, and to land contiguous or adjacent or used for an ancillary purpose. I recognise that that was a fairly limited class of land. Under the new Clause any land used for charitable or ecclesiastical purposes is now exempt from development charge and does not participate in the £300 million. Club rooms, camp grounds of youth organisations, university land, indeed, any land that is used for what is described as operational purposes under the War Damage Act, are exempt. The vicarage, which is some distance from the church, and the playing field, which is some distance from the

school, would be exempt although probably they were exempt when the Bill left the House. But the scope of exemption from development charge has been very much widened, and it now applies to all land used by charities for charitable purposes.
The second Amendment is that the new Clause extends to the inalienable land of the National Trust. Representations were made on behalf of the National Trust, and, although it was probable that this land was already exempt, it is now made quite clear that their inalienable land is relieved from the burden of a development charge. I imagine that up to that point there will be general agreement in the House. Indeed, the House has agreed to the new Clause, but where the issue arises as between another place and those who support the Government in this House is that the Amendment introduced into another place goes beyond operational land and seeks to treat land, which is held for investment purposes pure and simple in the same way as land which is used for the purposes of charity. All of us in this House are most sympathetic to the charities and would wish to do everything we possibly can not only to assist them, but not to frustrate them in their efforts. Many of us in this House are particularly interested in one form of charity or another. Many Members—and I am among them—are interested in educational charities. We would not wish to do anything to interfere with those educational charities which have always done a fine piece of work in the interests of education in this country.
Nevertheless, I am in great difficulty in accepting an Amendment which treats this one class of landowner differently from any other. The ground for exemption would be not the type of land and not even the purpose for which the land was to be used—because the purpose for which investment land is to be used is normally the same purpose as any other land, that is for ordinary development—but the criterion would be the character of the person who owns the land and the purpose for which he is going to use the money. The justification for exempting investment land is that the owners of that investment land are going to make good use of any benefits they derive from it, and I submit to the House that that is an impossible criterion for us to accept. If one were to be logical, one would have to


inquire into every person's credentials, the character of the owner of the land and what he is going to do with his money. That kind of investigation would lead as into all sorts of queer channels. That is the first ground of objection, that where the intention is to create a universal prohibition against development without consent and to impose a charge, it is quite impossible to take one category of persons of a particular kind and exempt them.
The next point of objection is that, normally, it will not be the charities themselves that will develop the land; it will be the persons to whom they lease or sell the land. They would normally be the developers, and if there were to be exemptions from development charges it would not, therefore, be to the charity to which the exemption would apply but to the proposed developer. The charity as a result would be able to charge a price or a rent for the land which would take into account and include the development charge. The charity would, therefore, benefit indirectly not directly. The hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) seems to find it difficult to follow, but it seems to me to be simple. If there is any difficulty I shall be glad to explain it.
The development charge is normally payable by the person who develops, not by the owner, and the normal developer would not be the charity but somebody to whom the charity sold or leased the land. The charity would benefit only indirectly or directly. This would constitute something which I know the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) opposed during the Report stage of the Bill and that is a hidden subsidy of an uncertain amount. I submit that in itself that is wrong in principle. If the charities are to be assisted, they should be assisted directly with amounts which can be clearly stated and about which this House and the country can be informed, and not by vague, uncertain and indefinite amounts which it will be quite impossible to calculate or evaluate, and which they will receive not directly, but indirectly, through persons who actually carry out the development.
There is a great deal of misconception as to the effect on the charities of the provisions of this Bill. I have heard alarmist statements as to how much certain of the university colleges are going to lose per annum. The true answer is that they

are going to lose nothing. Their existing income will be maintained, because nothing in this Bill affects that income. There is no charge and no tax on their existing income. Indeed, there is no reason why that income should not increase as the result of planning and their values may increase as leases fall in. There is no reason why charities should not be able to charge, subject, of course, to the Rent Restriction Acts, increased rent in accordance with the present day values. Therefore, if anything, not only will the incomes of the charities not fall in any way as a result of this Bill, but they will tend to increase with the decrease in the value of money, just as other commodities have increased in cost. As soon as they can convert their rents and incomes into current values, so will their incomes increase.
Where they lose is in the prospective profits which they might have realised as the result of the sale or rent of their investment land. That is to say, they lose in their capacity as landowners, but only where the land is undeveloped. Where it is developed they retain their present incomes so that they are affected, if at all, within the very narrow field of undeveloped land which they own for the purpose of selling one day or arranging for it to be developed at a profit.
Charities own a good deal of undeveloped land, much of which they have no intention of developing and never have had, and such land is not affected so long as it is used for the purpose of the charity. Further, land which is required for the purpose of future development of the charity and so on, is also not affected. As I say, it is only in a very limited field that they will be affected, and that is a field where they stand in the position of every other landowner in the country. For these reasons, therefore, much as I sympathise with the position of the charities, and much as I would wish to help them in any way, I find myself unable to agree with the Lords in this Amendment, and I invite the House to accept the Clause which has just been passed, as an earnest of the Government's desire to assist the charities to the fullest possible extent and not to press the matter beyond what I think is appropriate.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it


quite clear that the new Clause already passed exempts the inalienable land of the National Trust? I see no reference to this in the Clause in question.

Mr. Silkin: It does do so, and I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance with complete confidence.

Mr. H. Strauss: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying something in explanation both of the new Clause which we recently passed without discussion and that which is now the subject of his Motion that we should disagree with the Lords. I am sorry to detain the House at this late hour, but it is an extremely important matter as I think the House generally recognises. It is also a matter of very considerable complexity, although I think the real principle at issue is fairly simple. The right hon. Gentleman has quite rightly referred to the great changes that have been made between the Clause as originally introduced and that which we have just added to the Bill. It is over four months since I first raised this matter in Committee upstairs on behalf of the landowning charities and fought the Clause in its original form. The right hon. Gentleman was not too sympathetic towards my criticisms of the provisions that it then contained, but, nevertheless, on the Report stage he introduced certain Amendments which could not be discussed owing to the guillotine. When that Clause went to another place it was subjected to much criticism and its weaknesses were recognised and admitted by the Lord Chancellor himself, who, on the Report stage in another place, introduced the Clause which we have just passed.
6.15 p.m.
Let me say at once on behalf of those charities whose case I have endeavoured to state that that new Clause is a great advance and is much more satisfactory than the Clause which was contained in the Bill originally. As one who has long served on the executive committee of the National Trust perhaps I may add my personal pleasure at the provision it contains with regard to the National Trust. Nevertheless, it remains unsatisfactory because it does not deal by way of exemption with the investments of charities as they have been dealt with for more than 250 years in our legislation. Perhaps I should say that a number of charities have

joined together for the purpose of consulting and giving advice to the right hon. Gentleman's Department and other Departments when they think that legislation vitally affects them, and I have had the benefit of their advice. They include not only the universities and their colleges but such institutions as Christ's Hospital, the Salvation Army, the Foundling Hospital and many others. Although what I have to say applies, I think, to all charities generally, I feel sure that the House will not think it improper if I have particularly in mind the educational charities about which I know most.
Everyone will accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that no one in any quarter would wish to injure these great institutions. I would go further and say that it is the duty of the Government in introducing a Bill of this kind so to arrange matters that they do not in fact injure them. I believe that to be quite possible, but it has not been achieved unless we provide exceptional treatment for the investments of these charities in the same way that, over a very long period, all parties when they have formed the Government of this country have recognised the need and have given exceptional treatment. To mention only a few Acts, the Land Tax Act, 1693, more than 250 years ago, which was the very beginning of our modern system of direct taxation, exempted charities. The Income Tax Act, 1842, gave these charities exemption from tax on the income of their endowments. The Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1885, exempted them from the corporation tax to which other corporations were liable, and the Finance Act, 1927, exempted them from taxation on profits from certain business undertakings. But the example which I think the House will consider the most cogent and the most interesting was that set by the late Philip Snowden. When he introduced his Finance Act in 1931 imposing land value taxes, he gave total exemption to the charities.
What has been the basis of this very long history and tradition of exemption of the investments of these charities? It is, of course, the use made by the charities of their resources. In the contemplation of the law and of Parliament, their funds were devoted to the benefit of the community. It is not necessary in order to benefit the community that funds should pass through Whitehall. It is per-


fectly possible for the law and Parliament to take the view that the community receives direct benefit from letting the charities receive the income of their investments without deduction. The land investments of charities have been important for a very long period. Land is of more importance to them than ever today, because there are numerous matters which contribute to make it more important. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fall in the value of the £, and I might mention legislation dealing with covenants, and so forth.
All those matters make the land of very great importance today. When these charities say that they are going to suffer loss from the treatment of these investments by the Bill they are a most expert body speaking. They have records of their investments lasting over centuries. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to tell them that their fear that they will suffer loss is imaginary. Their long history and experience have shown them that investment in land is of vital importance for two reasons which have operated so continuously as to establish something in the nature of a natural law. One has been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and it is the tendency of the currency to depreciate. The other is one which will be familiar to all people interested in public affairs or who have anything to do with charities, and that is the tendency for the needs and requirements of the charities themselves to increase.
It would not have been possible for these charities to satisfy the increasing needs of the community had it not been that they habitually and successfully invested in land. I must mention one thing in passing, because the Minister may have tended to mislead the House. I am sure that it was not his intention to do so. If the Amendment is accepted none of these charities, in regard to any of their land, will be free from planning control. Though the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to mislead the House, I think he gave the erroneous impression that some form of exemption from planning control would follow the acceptance of the Amendment.
In all quarters of the House there will be a very general hope that the charities, in their investments last year, will have preferred land to "Dalton's 2½ per-

cents." What would be the effect of diminishing the resources of the charities? It would be one of four things. It might compel them to reduce their benefits. Nobody wants to do that. It might compel some of them, if their deeds permitted, to charge for services which they at present give freely, or to charge more than their present charges. I am sure that not one of us wants that. Thirdly, it might compel them to seek to raise money from the public. Everybody must know the present difficulty of following that course. The fourth alternative is to seek increased assistance from the State. I cannot say that it will not be more necessary in the future than it has been in the past for the State to give assistance. There is, however, a desire in all quarters that these ancient institutions shall retain as much independence as possible. If we do not desire to drive them unnecessarily to seek help from the State we must give them the same protection as this House has given charities for the last 250 years.
What is the nature of the Amendment? It only affects the land which the charities are holding on the appointed day. It does not enable them to go into the market and buy fresh land which will benefit. It says that, as regards their investments in land on the appointed day, they shall in effect have exemption from development charges in excess of the sums they receive in compensation. It may be true that development will generally be carried out not by the charity but by others, but that imposes no insuperable difficulty. The Government know that there is a principle for which we are contending, and that there is a difference between land held by the trustees of charities for charitable purposes and land held by a private owner for his own purposes.
There is another matter which should be of Ministerial concern that I ought to mention. Charities have not been completely uncontrolled in the way in which they make their investments. I would mention one Statute of great importance to many of them, the Universities and College Estates Act of 1925, which covers Oxford, Cambridge and Durham, and the colleges of those three universities, as well as some great schools. All their transactions in land take place with Ministerial approval. The Minister is the Minister of Agriculture. In many cases some of those


charities paid a high price for land with considerable development value, with Ministerial approval. In many cases they have refrained, rightly, and again with Ministerial approval, from taking quick profits or any profits hitherto.
I put to fair-minded Members in all quarters of the House a simple proposition. Where a charity has invested in land in perfect good faith, on the best professional advice and with express Ministerial approval, that charity ought not to suffer as a direct result of the Government's legislative action. In another place, so great has been the tradition of all parties to recognise the position of these great charities that there was collaboration in the matter among most distinguished representatives of my party and the Liberal Party. The Amendment we are considering was moved by Lord Samuel. I should like to record my gratitude to the Lord Chancellor for the interest he has shown in this matter. I think he has tried to study the position of these charities. In the Clause that he has moved, which we recently passed, he has improved the position, but in the answer he gave to the noble Lords who sought to insert this Clause he really made an inadequate reply, because he suggested even more directly than the right hon. Gentleman just now that somehow they were claiming some sort of exemption from planning control. They were not.
I thank the House for the patience with which they have heard the case put for these charities. I admit that, though the new Clause which the Government have moved and inserted is an improvement, I am asking for more. I am asking for more on grounds which will, I believe, appeal to men in all parties and to men who love our history and honour these ancient institutions, some of which are among the greatest glories of Christian civilisation. Last year I heard these words in Sheffield University, one of the universities I have the honour to represent, from John Masefield. I would read a few sentences which he then spoke:
There are few earthly things more splendid than a University. In these days of broken frontiers and collapsing values, when the dams are down and the floods are making misery, when every future looks somewhat grim and every ancient foothold has become something of a quagmire, wherever a University stands, it stands and shines; wherever it exists, the free minds of men, urged on to full and fair

inquiry, may still bring wisdom into human affairs.
There are few earthly things more beautiful than a University. It is a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see; where seekers and learners alike, banded together in the search for knowledge, will honour thought in all its finer ways, will welcome thinkers in distress or in exile, will uphold ever the dignity of thought and learning and will exact standards in these things. They give to the young in their impressionable years, the bond of a lofty purpose shared, of a great corporate life whose links will not be loosed until they die.
I believe that if there are any institutions in this country we should all feel it wise not to injure they are the universities, both ancient and modern, the colleges and the great institutions of learning. I have pleaded for a cause which I admit I have very much at heart. I beg the Government at this eleventh hour to accept the principle for which I plead. It is for that principle, and not for any exact wording in the Clause, that I shall urge this House to divide. Let the Government if they wish, if they do not like any of the words, produce a better form of words in another place, but let the principle be followed, a principle which our predecessors of all parties have followed for more than 250 years. Let us not inflict on these glorious institutions a wanton and a needless injury.

6.45 p.m.

Sir Alan Herbert: I would like briefly to support what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss). This Bill is not my favourite sort of Bill and I will not bandy words about the details of the Amendment or any other part of the Bill with the Minister, especially as he is not here. I have been present at a great many meetings of the charities concerned—not only the educational charities. I have read every word of the Debates in the House of Lords. I am not going to say "in another place." It is the House of Lords we are talking about.
I am absolutely satisfied that a great wrong is being done to these charities—not only the educational charities but many others—unwittingly and unwisely. I should assure the Minister if he were here that if he had been present at the meetings of the charities, they would have been somewhat astonished to learn that


they were not going to lose money but, as I gather from him, be more profitable as a result of this Bill. That is not the impression of those charities. As I said, I do not want to bandy words. I want to say, first, that I support my hon. and learned Friend very much in the thanks which he has given to the Lord Chancellor for the very fine part he played in this matter in the House of Lords. I know that he has dealt with the matter most sympathetically and has improved the situation. But I want to press on the Front Bench that the last avenue is not closed. It is still possible for the Front Bench to change their minds and still possible for another Amendment to be made in another place. I appeal to the Front Bench not to make this their last word because, after all, does anybody in this House want to take money away from any charitable institution, which is all we are, in fact, doing?

Mr. McAllister: Like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I followed the proceedings in another place with great interest. In the last stages of a great complicated Bill which has been full of technicalities, it is a great pleasure to get one part of it which deals with entirely human aspects of town planning and community living. Everybody reading the Debate in another place would be impressed not only by the noble Lord, Viscount Samuel, who put forward this Amendment, but by the general consensus of opinion that here was something quite outside the ordinary conditions of land ownership and land use. Everybody was delighted to see the new provisions in the Clause which we have just inserted, which certainly ameliorate the position. It is good to know that charities using land and continuing to use it as at present are exempt entirely from the development charge but are equally not entitled to compensation. It is wise that the inalienable land of the National Trust should be equally exempt, but the Minister was frank when he said that where charities lose is in the prospective sale of their investment land. He could not have been clearer. That is exactly the case. There is no other way in which the charities suffer as a result of the Clause we have just inserted.
We have gone four-fifths of the way, but I am not quite sure that meets the

deepest feelings of hon. Members with regard to charities, universities, the great trusts, the Salvation Army and many other charitable organisations. There was a great deal in what was said by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss) that in all our legislation since ever charities were recognised by the nation as something unique in the life of the nation, we have had this exemption. We nave recognised it from the first of the Land Acts down to the Entertainment Duty regulations which continue. But we should remember that this is not a taxation business, and for that reason it ought perhaps to be easier to exempt charities than if we were imposing a new tax. One can visualise circumstances in which a charity might be very seriously affected by the Clause as it is now amended.
Take, for example, the pioneer work of the Salvation Army in regard to what they call "Eventide Homes"—homes for aged people. Suppose under the Bill the bit of land on which their old people's homes are situated were zoned for industrial purposes and industry went to that neighbourhood. If industry went to that neighbourhood, it might be true that they continued in the use of that land for their homes, but if they said, "This area has been so changed in character that it is no longer suitable for old people's homes," and if they wanted to sell the land and re-create the institution in a more pleasant environment, they would not get the value, and they might have to pay a much higher price for the institution in its new surroundings, and thereby they would suffer severely. I know that the Minister has tried, to the best of his ability, to meet all these points of view, and I do not think anybody suggests that in his heart he does not agree with us in this very human issue, but I would join with the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) in pleading with the Government, if they can, to think about it again and, if it is possible to introduce in another place something that will clear up this one point, not only the House but the whole country will feel that we have done something that is just, equitable and charitable.

The Attorney-General: I think the House recognises that we have given the most anxious, the most careful and, indeed, the most sympathetic consideration


to the position of charities as affected by this Bill. I think the House recognises also that we have given the charities not half a loaf but four-fifths of a loaf in this matter. Whilst all of us must sympathise with the view put forward on behalf of charitable institutions, I thought that the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), in his eloquent oration, was really putting his case a little too high; indeed, I hope he will not think this impertinent but I have never heard a mountain made out of a mole-hill with more eloquence than the hon. and learned Member succeeded in using. From what he said, one would have imagined that the Government were involved in some grave and new attack upon the charitable principle in this country. Nothing of the kind.
All we are seeking to do in this Clause, as the Bill now stands, is to apply the principle which was applied to charities by the Coalition Government in 1943, when they distinguished between operational land and investment land; required contributions for war damage payments in respect of the latter, and exempted the former. It is exactly that principle which we are seeking to apply here. The hon. and learned Member sought to draw some analogy between the exemptions which charities enjoy from ordinary taxation, and their proposed exemption from the proposed betterment charges and Part VII of the Bill. I am not at all sure that the analogy is a sound one. If the activities of a charity are held to be for the public benefit, and it is on that basis only that the exemption arises, it may be thought to be in the public interest to exempt them from contributing to the ordinary revenues. This, of course, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen (Mr. McAllister) said, is not a taxing Bill in the ordinary sense, and it by no means follows that it would be in the public interest that charities should be allowed to retain, not for operational purposes but for investment purposes, what in practice and effect would become a right to use their land in a different and a larger way than was possessed by ordinary owners.
That is, in effect, the result of the extraordinarily complicated provisions of the new Clause which was inserted in another place. I am not sure whether I have followed all the intricacies of the new

Clause, which would be exceedingly difficult in practice to administer, but the charity or, indeed, in some cases even the purchaser from the charity, where development permission had been obtained, would be able to develop land in the knowledge that the development charge which might be levied upon him could not exceed the amount which had been paid, it might be, long before under Part VI. This is where questions of planning control, in practice, arise. That would have the result that the Central Land Board, whose duty it will be to control development over the country as a whole by selling development rights for a small amount in one area where it wants to encourage development, and for a larger amount in another where it wants to put a brake on it, would find its hands in some measure tied by the fact that when it came to deal with land which, quite fortuitously, so far as it was concerned, happened to be or to have been owned by a charity, it would be unable to charge more by way of development charge than had been paid by way of compensation under Part VI.
That is really quite foreign to the whole scheme of this Bill in so far as the Bill involves—as it does in all its provisions, including these betterment provisions—a scheme for controlling and securing consistency in the development of land. That is the scheme. The Central Land Board becomes, in effect, the owner of all the land in the country, entitled to lease or to sell development rights as a good landlord, promoting the development of the estate in the interests of the State as a whole. A good landlord, in dealing with the disposition of the various parts of his estate, would no doubt have regard in negotiating the terms on which the land was to be developed, not to the persons who were to develop it, but to the nature of the development which was to take place. Indeed, only an hour or two ago we agreed to the insertion of a Clause which provides that there is to be no discrimination in regard to development charges between two applicants, and what, therefore, the Board must have regard to is not the applicant, but what is the nature of the proposed development.
If the Board, in seeking to discourage a particular form of development in one area at a particular time says, "We are not prepared to sell the development rights to you except for a very high


figure "it would, to say the least, be manifestly inconvenient if they could be met by the would-be developer saying, "You can't do that to me; although I have received by way of compensation nothing more than my neighbour has received, I happen to be the conductor of a cats' home—or a society for promoting the doctrines of Joanna Southcott—and you cannot charge me by way of development charges more than I have received, it may be a long time ago, by way of compensation under Part VI of the Bill." That would be quite inconsistent with the general scheme of this Bill.
If charities require State assistance—one ought not to shut one's eyes to it, that is really what this Clause would give them—it ought to be direct, open assistance, the extent and amount of which depends on the activities of the charities and their need for financial help. It ought not to be a hidden subsidy which results in their securing, it may be, substantial financial benefit regardless of whether they need the money or not. It may be that some charities in the future

will suffer some loss through being unable to secure the full value of development and of changes from the existing user of their investment land. If that be so, if they require assistance, the proper way to get it is by direct financial assistance from the State, and not by this indirect or hidden subsidy. For these reasons, I am afraid that, although we regret it, we must persist in the attitude we have taken up to this Clause.

7.0 p.m.

Sir A. Herbert: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman describe protection from confiscation as a hidden subsidy?

The Attorney-General: I do not take the view that there is any question of confiscation here. Many people criticise this Bill for the fact that it does not involve nationalisation of the land. What is in fact done under the Bill is that the State are purchasing development rights and paying compensation for them.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 220; Noes, 44.

Division No. 352.]
AYES
[7.01 p. m


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Corvedale, Viscount
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Cove, W. G.
Hale, Leslie


Allen, A. C, (Bosworth)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hamilton, Lt.-Col. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Daines, P
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Harrison, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Haworth, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Ayles, W. H.
Diamond, J
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Barstow. P. G.
Dodds, N. N.
Herbison, Miss M.


Barton, C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hewitson, Capt. M


Battley, J. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hicks, G.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.


Belcher, J. W.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Holman, P.


Benson, G.
Ede, Rt. Hon J. C.
House, G.


Berry, H.
Edelman, M
Hoy, J.


Beswick, F
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hubbard, T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Binns, J.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W)


Blackburn, A. R.
Ewart, R.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Blenkinsop, A.
Field, Captain W. J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Blyton, W R
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Foot, M. M.
Irving, W. J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Forman, J. C.
Janner, B.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jay, D. P T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gaitskell, H. T N.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bruce, Major D. W. T
Gallacher, W.
Jones, J H. (Bolton)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Castle, Mrs B. A
Gibson, C. W
Keenan, W.


Chamberlain, R A
Gilzean, A.
Kenyon, C.


Chater, D.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Chetwynd, G. R
Goodrich, H. E.
Kinley, J.


Cobb, F. A.
Gordon-Walker, P C.
Lavers, S.


Cocks, F. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J


Collick, P.
Greenwood, A. W. J (Heywood)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Collindridge, F.
Grey, C. F.
Leonard, W.


Collins, V. J.
Grierson, E.
Leslie, J. R.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Levy, B. W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K (Camb'well, N W)
Gunter R. J
Lewis, A W J (Upton)




Lindgren, G. S.
Pearl, Thomas F.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


McAdam, W.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Sylvester, G. O.


McEntee, V. La T
Price, M Philips
Symonds, A. L.


McGhee, H G.
Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Mack, J. D.
Pryde, D. J.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


McLeavy, F.
Ranger, J.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rankin, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Reeves, J.
Tiffany, S.


Mann, Mrs. J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Robens, A.
Viant, S. P.


Marquand, H A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Robertson, J J. (Berwick)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Mathers, G.
Rogers, G. H. R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Medland, H. M.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Weitzman, D.


Middleton, Mrs. L
Scollan, T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Mikardo, Ian
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Mitchison, G. R
Sharp, Granville
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Monslow, W
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H (St. Helens)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Morgan, Dr H. B.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Wilkes, L.


Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Simmons, C. J.
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Skeffington, A. M.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Murray, J. D.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Willis, E.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Wyatt, W


Orbach, M.
Solley, L. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Paget, R. T.
Sorensen, R. W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Palmer, A. M. F.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Zilliacus K.


Pargiter, G. A
Sparks, J. A.



Paton, J. (Norwich)
Stephen, C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Snow and Mr. Popplewell.




NOES.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Herbert, Sir A. P.
Smithers Sir W.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Low, Brig. A. R W.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J (Moray)


Byers, Frank
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Carson, E,
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Challen, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Vane, W M. F.


Channon, H.
Molson, A H E.
Walker-Smith, D.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (C'nc'ster)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Nield, B. (Chester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


D[...]ayson, G. B
Raikes, H. V.



Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Rayner, Brig. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gage, C.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Mr. Drewe and Major Conant.


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)



Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 111 in, line 27, at end, insert:

NEW CLAUSE G—(Applications for planning permission, determination of development charges, etc.)

.—(1) An application to a local planning authority for planning permission under Part III of this Act, and an application to the Central Land Board for the making or confirmation of any determination under Part VII of this Act, shall be made in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under this Act and shall include such particulars and shall be verified by such evidence as may be required by the regulations or by any directions given by the local planning authority or the Board thereunder.

(2) Subject to the following provisions of this Section, regulations made under this Act may provide for the combination in a single document, made in such form and transmitted to such authority as may be prescribed by the regulations, of—

(a) an application for planning permission in respect of any development;

(b) an application for a determination of the Central Land Board in respect of that development;
(c) any submission or application required to be made to a local authority in respect of that development under any enactment specified in the regulations.

(3) Any regulations made for the purposes of this Section which relate to any such application or submission as is mentioned in paragraph (c) of the last foregoing Subsection shall be made by the Minister and the Minister of Health, after consultation with such local authorities or associations of local authorities as appear to them to be concerned; and different provision may be made by such regulations in relation to areas in which different enactments are in force.

(4) An application or submission required to be made to a local authority under any enactment specified in such regulations as aforesaid shall, if made in accordance with the provisions of the regulations, be deemed to be valid notwithstanding anything in that enactment prescribing or enabling any authority to prescribe the form in which or the manner in which such an application or submission


is to be made, but without prejudice to the validity of any application or submission made in accordance with that enactment, and without prejudice to any provision of that enactment enabling any such authority to require further particulars of the matters to which the application or submission relates.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 13, at the end, to insert:
(a) the submission of plans and specifications under building byelaws, and in other similar cases.
I think that this is the last Amendment with which it will be necessary for the House to trouble itself today. It is one in regard to which I have some hopes that we may get a concession from the Government. The point is almost a drafting one. The House will see that the purpose of the Clause is to enable applications for planning permission and determination of development charges to go forward at the same time. In fact, the Clause re-enacts parts of Clause 13, which have been omitted in order that they may be brought in here.
Clause 13 (3, a) deals with the case of building and by-law applications. I think it is the intention of the Government that applications for planning permission and for the determination of development charges, should also include applications for building and by-law permission. It is true that under Subsection (2, c) of this new Clause there are general words which might possibly be wide enough to include my submission, but it is not quite clear, and it would be an improvement in the drafting of this Clause if the words proposed in my Amendment could be included. I hope that at this last moment, after we have dealt with this long series of Amendments, the Government may see their way to make one small concession.

Mr. Molson: I beg to second the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Mr. Silkin: For the sake of peace, and in order to show appreciation of the way in which these proceedings have been conducted, I should have been very happy to have accepted this Amendment, but it really is unnecessary. I am advised that it is fully covered by the provisions of Subsection (2, c) of the new Clause and that to incorporate the words of the Amendment which we are now discussing would be to minimise the effect of Subsection (2, c). I am prepared to have

another look at it, and to make absolutely certain that the submission of plans and specifications under building by-laws and under similar cases are covered. My present advice is that they are fully covered, and that it will be quite unnecessary to insert the words proposed.

Mr. C. Williams: I admit I am a little disappointed at the way the right hon. Gentleman has received this Amendment. I am also disappointed because earlier today he expressed the hope that I would take an interest in the Bill. That being so I am disappointed that he did not deal more fully with the other words of the Clause in relation to a point I asked earlier. As he has sought to stir me up to take a practical interest in the proceedings, I hope that he will be able to explain the position about which I asked then.

7.15 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In view of the Minister's undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

SEVENTH SCHEDULE—(Modifications of Part II of Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.)

Lords Amendment: In page 138, line 48, at end, insert:

"Extension of owner-occupier supplement to certain subsidiary companies.

3.—(1) Where an interest in land the value of which falls to be ascertained in accordance with the provisions of Part II of the Act of 1944 for the purposes of the compensation payable on a compulsory acquisition thereof is an interest held by a company having among its objects the holding of land, and being related (as hereinafter defined) to another company which carries on business on land so held, then, without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph (a) of Subsection (6) of Section fifty-eight of the said Act, or of any regulation made thereunder, Subsection (5) of that Section shall have effect in relation to that interest as if references in paragraphs (a) to (d) of that subsection to the person entitled to compensation for the purchase of that interest included references to the last mentioned company.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph a company shall be deemed to be related to another company if either of those companies is a subsidiary of the other (as defined by any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to companies) or if both of them are subsidiaries (as so defined) of a third company."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. C. Williams: As this Amendment deals with the matter of acquisition and compensation, I would like to trouble the Minister on this particular point. We ought to have an explanation. Could the Parliamentary Secretary or someone give us one? We have heard nothing whatever about this matter, so far as I know. I do not think that the point has been covered at other times in the course of consideration of the Bill. It seems to be of some importance.

Mr. Silkin: Really, it is a very simple point. It is intended to enable subsidiary companies of multiple companies to be treated as owner-occupiers in order to get the supplementary compensation—the additional percentage—until such time as they rank for market value. Under this Bill the 1939 compensation comes to an end, but until that time compensation will still be paid on that basis. So far subsidiary companies have not been treated as owner occupiers so as to entitle them to the 60 per cent. This enables the subsidiary companies to be so treated.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE—(Enactments amended.)

Lords Amendment: In page 139, line 36, column 2, leave out from "twenty-one" to end of line 15 on page 140, and insert:
after the words ' Local Authority,' in the second place where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words ' and the Local Planning Authority within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947'; and after the words 'County Council', in the second place where those words occur, there shall be inserted the word 'not being the Local Planning Authority'.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker: I understand that this and the following Amendments until we get to page 150 all hang together, and that it would be for the convenience of the House if we took them all together.

Mr. C. Williams: I should be only too happy to take them together, but I think that if we are to make this concession we might have a few words from the Minister

about the real meaning running through the Amendments. There seem to be a large number of Amendments and I have always been taught by hon. Gentlemen opposite to be a little suspicious of another place. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should be able to give me enough satisfaction to know that the Amendments really do hang together and that they improve the Bill.

Mr. Silkin: I should certainly like to give the hon. Gentleman every possible satisfaction—in view of his great interest in this matter. These are Amendments which have been brought to our notice by the Urban District Councils Association. They represent a variety of minor improvements in machinery. For instance, one preserves the present position whereby county district councils receive notice of any proposal to erect an overhead electric supply line. I am perfectly prepared to give the hon. Gentleman information on every one of the Amendments. They are all Amendments of that kind.

Mr. Williams: Would the right hon. Gentleman permit me to interrupt? I do not ask him to make remarks on every one of the Amendments. I have had some correspondence on the subject. I take it that these Amendments satisfy the local authority position.

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Transitory Provisions and Provisions Consequential on Repeals.)

Lords Amendment: In page 157, line 38, leave out from "shall" to end of line and insert:
if in force on the appointed day, continue in force in accordance with the terms thereof and may be enforced under the said Section thirty-four or under the scheme, as the case may be:
Provided that—

(a) nothing in any such agreement shall be construed as restricting the exercise, in relation to land to which any such agreement applies, of any powers exercisable by any Minister or authority under this Act, so long as those powers are exercised in accordance with the provisions of the development plan or in accordance with any directions which may have been given by the Minister under Section thirty-six of this Act, or as requiring the exercise of any such powers otherwise than as aforesaid.
(b) if the Minister is satisfied, on application made to him by any person being a


party to any such agreement, or a person entitled to land affected thereby, or by the local housing authority, that any restriction on the development or use of the land imposed by the agreement is inconsistent with the proper planning or development of the area comprising the land, he may by order discharge or modify that restriction so far as appears to him to be expedient;
(c) without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing paragraph, if any person being a party to any such agreement (whether as originally made or as modified under the foregoing paragraph), or a person entitled to land affected thereby, claims that the agreement ought to be modified or rescinded having regard to the provisions of this Act or anything done thereunder, he may refer to arbitration the question whether the agreement should be so modified or rescinded, and the arbitrator may make such award as appears to him to be just having regard to all the circumstances."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: This is the Amendment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General referred in the earlier part of our discussion with regard to the new Clause which takes the place of Section 34 in the 1932 Act. I do not intend to take up any time on this and I merely propose to say that I hope the Minister will consider restricting the power of local authorities to revoke an agreement and to limit that power to only being able to do that with the consent of the Minister. I do not think that we need debate this matter again: it is tied up with the other. I am sure that it is wrong in practice that local authorities, or anyone else, should be given power of unilateral revocation.

Mr. Silkin: I am at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is wrong that local authorities should make agreements and then unilaterally seek to abrogate them, sometimes having received some benefit from them. Certainly, I should not be a party to that. I will do everything possible by administrative means to prevent it. I have to approve the original agreement and the abrogation can only be done as a result of a review of the plan. I think that a good deal can be done in that way, but I am also prepared to issue a memorandum to the local authorities on the question of agreements, making quite plain to them what is the general feeling of this House.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: With the leave of the House, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said and ask him also to bear in mind the case where an agreement was originally in conformity with the plan for zoning for industrial purposes and where the effect of the wax has been that the land is now required for housing purposes? The revocation of agreement there may penalise the people with whom the agreement was made.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to. [Several with Special Entries.]

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill.
That Mr. Chetwynd, Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth, Mr. Medland, Mr. W. S. Morrison and Mr. Silkin be the Members of the Committee;
That three be the quorum.

Committee to withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Orders of the Day — INDIA (GOVERNORS' ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES)

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [30th July].
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 309 of the Government of India Act, 1935, Praying that the Government of India (Governors' Allowances and Privileges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — BURMA (GOVERNOR'S SALARY, ALLOWANCES AND PRIVILEGES)

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [30th July].
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, Paying that the Government of Burma (Governor's Salary, Allowances and Privileges)


(Amendment) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Question again proposed.

Orders of the Day — BURMA (HIGH COURT JUDGES)

Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [30th July].
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty in pursuance of the provisions of Section 157 of the Government of Burma Act, 1935, praying that the Government of Burma (High Court Judges) (Amendment) Order, 1947, be made in the form of the draft laid before Parliament."—[Mr. A. Henderson.]

Question again proposed.

Addresses to be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — DUNGENESS (WATER SUPPLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. E. P. Smith: When I chose the title for this short Debate, "The Strange Dilatoriness of the War Office in supplying main water to Dungeness," I used the word strange in the Pickwickian sense because, to speak of the strange dilatoriness of the War Office, under its present management, would, of course, be a contradiction in terms. For the understanding of the House, or what is left of it, I would point out that the village of Dungeness is divided into two parts. First of all, there is a large bungalow or sea coast village, which is provided with main water, electricity and sewerage; and there is also a fishing village, inhabited by the fishermen of that corner of the Kentish coast. It comprises a number of old, weather-boarded cottages, many of which date back to the early 18th century, and which have no main water, no electricity, and, as far as I can see, not very much sewerage. My complaint lies in regard to the latter—the fishing village.
The "Pluto" lines, the under-sea pipes conveying oil for the invasion of France, entered the channel at the village of Dungeness, and by means of them oil was pumped across the channel in 1944; and, on the success of the "Pluto" lines depended the success of our invasion of Europe. For some reason or other—whether it was an engineering fault, or not I do not know—these lines burst constantly round about the point where they entered the sea, and this resulted in the surrounding shingle, which stretches for miles inland, being flooded with oil. This oil, seeping through the shingle, contaminated all the wells in the fishing village of Dungeness; and it is interesting to note in this connection that the wells of Dungeness were famous for the purity and excellence of their water.
These wells were worked on a communal basis, and I am only sorry that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is not present now. Every two, three or four houses clustered together contained a communal well. It was their common well, and they drew upon it for their water. When the con-


tamination occurred the military were in occupation of Dungeness, and, therefore, the problem was a simple one for them to solve. They had caused the damage; they had to make it good. All they had to do was to erect, in the fishing village of Dungeness, a number of open iron troughs, rather like pig troughs, throughout that area of the village. They had only to supply a water wagon, and send it only a 100 yards or so to the mains in the bungalow village and bring the water to the troughs in the fishing village. Everyone was uncomfortable, but everyone was comparatively happy.
Then two things happened. First, the war ended, and the Army evacuated Dungeness. The second thing was that we had a General Election and a Socialist Government achieved office—a Government, as we know, of planners who had only to complete the jig-saw to make a perfect picture. Personally, I did not share that view, and, for that reason, I took especial pains substantially to increase my majority at the General Election. I realised that my wisdom in doing so was reflected in regard to the water at Dungeness. The Army had gone; the Socialist Government was in power, but the pig troughs remained. I would like to point out to the House that these pig troughs are open, so that the water they contain is tepid in summer and frozen hard in winter. They are the home of the algae, the cradle of the mosquito larvae; they are also susceptible to the occasional benisons from the seagulls flying above the village; and this is the water upon which the villagers depend for every sort of purpose. I put the Minister of Health to considerable expense in compelling him constantly to clean out the troughs, but the main thing about them is and was that they must be kept filled with water.
The Army, having evacuated Dungeness, sent an Army water wagon from Shorncliffe, eight or nine miles away, every day to fill up at the mains in the bungalow village and transport the water the 100 yards or so away and empty it into the pig troughs in the fishing village; and I ascertained by Question from the hon. Gentleman who is to reply that the cost of that service to the taxpayer has been £500 a year. This, in the course of my duties, came to my

ears, and I threatened the War Office with further proceedings. The War Office took fright. They promised to, lay main water to the fishing village of Dungeness; and I passed my first calm night for some weeks. I had reckoned, however, without the lawyers. It appears that there are a good many lawyers on the pay-roll of the War Office; and these War Office lawyers soon found out a wonderful fact about the Dungeness water. It was this. Although these wells were communally shared, they happened to be individually owned. They belonged, in fact, to one householder out of the three, four or five households which they supplied. "Therefore," said the War Office lawyers, "if we supply that one householder with main water, honour and legality will be satisfied," and they proceeded to do it.
Now, Sir, another factor comes upon the scene—the Littlestone Water Company. As far as I can bake out, the Littlestone Water Company is also honeycombed with lawyers, and they had to have their say, and what they said, in effect, was this—"Yes, we will lay the water on to you as the householder who legally owns the well, but you must covenant under severe penalties never to share it with your neighbours." So, in fact, one house in four or so got the water and the other three did not. I cannot describe what I imagine to have been the enthusiasm of the lawyers at the War Office over this turn of events, but I am sure they said, "Good. We have silenced the hon. Member for Ashford, but only very few people will get the main water." The pig troughs will remain; the cost to the taxpayer will be in no way reduced.
God's in His Heaven—all's right with the world!
I rather suspect that they and the lawyers of the local water company foregathered, and had a champagne supper on the strength of it.
In those circumstances, what did I do? I went down to Dungeness, and I took the precaution of taking a witness with me. I took an hon. Member of this House, the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), who happens to be a constituent of mine, and a near neighbour, and who frequently lends me his moral, if not his political support. I am authorised by him to say that be would have been


here tonight to support me had he not had an important engagement in Eire. The facts were revealed to the hon. Member for Rugby and myself in all their ugly nakedness, and it was, indeed, a very ugly nakedness. We also discovered that the capital cost of laying on the water to the deprived cottages would be in the neighbourhood of £250, less than 50 per cent. of the annual cost to the taxpayer for conveying this water 100 yards from the bungalow village to the fishing village.
Having done that, we came back, and we interviewed the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. I must say that he was most obliging. He told me that the matter would be put right at once. He who had been for so many years the "Soldier's Friend" would never consent to being the civilian's enemy. That was just a year ago, and since then nothing has been done. Did I say nothing? There I am wrong. The week before last I put down a Question covering the matter. The moment my Question appear on the Order Paper, the War Office, through its agents, the military at Shorncliffe stopped sending the water wagon. They cut off these poor people from their one supply of water; the pig troughs were empty. The driver of the water wagon, who had made this journey daily for two years, began, unaccountably, to lose his way. Anxious telephone calls from Dungeness to Shorncliffe disclosed that he always started but never arrived; and the people of Dungeness were actually reduced to stealing the water company's water. That, of course, infuriated—and naturally—the water company, which threatened them with prosecution. In order to be fair to the hon. Gentleman who is going to reply, I should say that, on 28th July, 1947, he wrote to me as follows:
I am extremely sorry the military arrangement for the inhabitants of Dungeness to receive a domestic water supply was interrupted on 9th, 10th and nth July owing to the water cart having broken down.
That suggests to me two things; first, that the military at Shorncliffe have only one water cart, and, secondly, that that cart must have read my Question on the Order Paper. In fact, these poor fisher folk at Dungeness—the hon. Gentleman must let me develop my case; he does not want very long, I am sure, in which to reply—have been haunted by two gibbering, chattering skeletons acting in grisly unison

—the War Office and the Littlestone water company—and, after two years of torture, even their sturdy spirit has been broken down. In fact, the letters which they write to me are so pitiful that I dare not leave them lying about. The Under-Secretary of State for War says that shortage of lead for pipes is the cause of the delay. Poppycock! Has he never heard of iron pipes? If he really believes his fatuous answer to my question, he' could not possibly pass an elementary examination in general knowledge. Does he realise that the mains are already laid on to the groups of cottages? Does he realise that all that is needed is to connect the already laid mains to the deprived cottages? It is a very small, almost a microscopic, operation. But it seems to be too difficult for the War Office or for the Littlestone water company. I think it was King George II who said of his military forces:
I do not know what impression these fellows will make on the enemy, but, by God, they terrify me!
I, too, am terrified by the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary. They have been proved unfaithful in the little things and so they may very well prove to be unfaithful in the great things.
I charge the War Office with gross incompetence in this matter, although that is nothing new; I charge them with scandalous and unnecessary waste of the taxpayers' money, although that is nothing new either. I charge them with bad faith and with having broken their word in this matter; and, finally, I charge them with a mean and sadistic action in estopping the water wagon from Shorncliffe to Dungeness the moment my Question appeared on the Order Paper

7.47 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) is well known and well liked in this House as the author of sensational tales.

Mr. E. P. Smith: Not tales.

Mr. Freeman: Sensational works of fiction, shall I say? While he confines himself to that role we shall give him our full support. Indeed, I regret the size of his audience tonight which, I hope, will not be a forerunner of anything that he may shortly expect in another field. I want to ask those loyal members of the public who have stayed with him as long


as this to apply the analysis of fact to the story that he has told us. I start by saying, perfectly genuinely, that I deeply sympathise with the inhabitants of Dungeness in this matter. This is a hardship which I myself have actually experienced in Dungeness, and I know as well as the hon. Member does exactly what the situation is there.
Before going any further, I want to dismiss from this case the matter of the water cart. The hon. Gentleman was not serious, and I feel certain he would not stand by his absurd suggestion that there was any sort of deliberate policy in withholding the contents of the water cart from what he has referred to as the pig troughs in Dungeness. I have apologised to him for the fact that for three or four days during last month the supply of water was interrupted, and I have taken steps, which I hope will be effective, to make certain that that will not occur again. That is without prejudice to any of the bigger issues.
I do not quarrel substantially with the background facts of this case as he has stated them. The wells of the inhabitants of Dungeness were polluted by the effects of "Pluto," and we were all faced with the problem of what to do to maintain the supply of water. It is in no sense "passing the buck," but merely making a statement of fact, when I say that the War Department are under no legal liability to provide water for the inhabitants of Dungeness. We might or might not be under a legal liability to provide some form of compensation for any damage that we had done to their wells; but, in fact, we have never stood on that at all, and we have always said from the very beginning that since the people of Dungeness were asked, as part of their war effort, to suffer the pollution of their water supply, we would do our best to help them restore the situation.
So what did we do? In October, 1945—after the hon. Member had made representations unavailingly to Sir James Grigg in the Coalition Government to put this matter right, and, with more success, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. J. J. Lawson) in the present Government—we agreed to facilitate the laying of main water to the points where the wells had previously existed; that is to say, standpipes open

to the public wherever there had been wells. Obviously, we were not going to do so ourselves. The water company agreed to do so, and we agreed to foot 90 per cent. of the bill. That arrangement appeared at that time, to everybody concerned, reasonably satisfactory.
So far as we were concerned, at that moment, the matter was closed. We had undertaken to pay the money, and the water company had agreed to do the work. Without our knowledge—and I emphasise this—the water company, instead of placing standpipes on the existing sites of the wells, for legal reasons which the hon. Member has developed, laid the pipes into the nearest individual cottages to the existing wells, and, having done that, enforced their legal-sanction that the water was for those cottages and those cottages only, and was not to be shared. We had no knowledge of that at all, until it was subsequently brought to our notice by renewed complaints. It was entirely the action and responsibility of the Littlestone Water Company, who were the agents in this matter. Naturally, further complaints did develop, and the hon. Member made further representations. I would point out that at all stages, until quite recently, the hon. Member acted with courtesy in the representations that he made. He has, in fact, gone out of his way to compliment my right hon. Friend on the forthcoming spirit with which he has dealt with this matter.
As a result of the further representations which he made, we held a further meeting between ourselves, the local military, the Littlestone Water Company and the local authority. It was agreed at that meeting that, whereas it was no legal responsibility at all of the War Office to do anything about this, the fact remained that it was owing to the operations of the military that this discomfort had been caused, and that, as the problem had not been satisfactorily solved before, we would see if we could do something more. Accordingly we arranged in October, 1946, to lay water on to the remaining cottages which had been served by the wells, and which were at that moment still deprived of water. Having made that arrangement we were unaware of the exact legal conditions in the locality, and we asked the local authority to provide us with a certificated list of the cottages which were eligible for that service. That was in October. October went by,


and November, December and January. By January we were getting alarmed, because we were not making any further progress with this matter, the local authority having apparently taken no action.
The hon. Member for Ashford has made his view of the local authority plain to us on a number of occasions, and I agree with him. We finally found, after extensive prodding of the local authority, that they had been unable to get on with their part of the job because, in the meantime, both the borough engineer and his clerk, the two responsible people, had passed quietly into retirement, leaving the work incomplete. In the event, legal operations and the drawing up of the list of the cottages eligible to receive this water was done by one of my own officials in his spare time. He put the list to the local council, and it was approved by the local council, that being the only way we could make progress towards finding out who was eligible for this water. In February we asked the company to provide an estimate for carrying out the work, and at the end of April they did present us with an estimate. We sat on that estimate for three weeks—not I think, an unreasonable time. We had been waiting from October to the end of April to receive it, and we kept it three weeks examining it. At the end of three weeks we agreed that it was a fair estimate and to foot 90 per cent. of the Bill. We suggested to the water company that at that stage it would be appropriate for them to go ahead and relieve the inhabitants of Dungeness of their hardship.
The water company pondered that clarion call to action for a month, at the end of which time they replied that they were unable to get on because they had not got any of the necessary pipes and fittings. It was not we who said that; it was the water company who said it. And I have some sympathy with the hon. Member that they should have made that excuse. It was an excuse made by the Littlestone Water Company, his no doubt valued constituents.

Mr. E. P. Smith: And so are the fishermen.

Mr. Freeman: Well, they made that excuse. We were really anxious to help in this matter, because we like the hon. Member, and I personally like the inhabitants of Dungeness. So, refusing to

be put off by this excuse, we wrote to the water company and said, in effect: "We have a large supply of stocks of various kinds ourselves, which are rather higgledy-piggledy, left over from the war. We believe we might be able to meet your needs in this matter. We will make available to you anything you want." They sent us a list of what they wanted, and we wrote and told them, first of all, that we had not got what they wanted according to exact specifications, but that we had materials which we thought would meet their needs, which we would make available to them. That was the situation two days ago.
I had hoped from that, that within the next two or three weeks the work would start. However, I was distressed this morning when the hon. Member's constituents—referring again to the water company—wrote to me and said that they were unable to accept the offer which I had made to them to provide these parts because—and this is the excuse they gave:
… the parts we have been offered are black and ungalvanised.
The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom), who understands these matters, is not here, and I am not apprised of the exact significance of that. All I can say is, that they are parts we have used habitually for similar work of this kind over a long period, and my engineers advise me that they would be suitable for the Littlestone Water Company. As far as we are concerned, the Littlestone Water Company is welcome to them.
I can do no more than that. The hon. Member has used a great deal of strong language for which—and I think perhaps he will understand what I mean—the topical word at the moment is "rubbish." I have given him a factual account of the situation, which I would suggest goes to show that at no time have we had any responsibility in this matter at all, but that we have been anxious the whole time to make good any incidental damage which we, in the course of the war, were responsible for causing. For this reason we have done our best all along to help him and to meet him, and it is up to him to stick pins into both the local authority and the local water company.

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes to Eight o'Clock.